660) XVIII: Armenian-American Lobby Organization Fabricates Reports of Muslims Massacring Christians: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

U.S. Senate Says "No" to Armenians Armenian-American Lobby Organization Fabricates Reports of Muslims Massacring Christians . .

In the final volume of his four-volume series, Hovannissian discusses the last months of the existence of the Armenian republic in 1920. He ignores talking about the war-like attempts of the Armenian leaders who used armed force and attacked, time after time, defenseless Muslim villages for the sole purpose of taking their lands from them for free. Rather, Hovannissian places emphasis on the Turkish national forces who responded to the Armenian plot to attack them by attacking first and reclaiming their ancestral lands Turks had occupied for as long as eight hundred years. Russian forces then took what was left of the Armenian republic because those lands had historically been a part of that country. The actual facts are that the Armenians joined the Soviet Union of their own free will, cut a deal with the Communists, and never fired a shot in defending their self-called "historic homeland».

Just as Hovannissian ended volume III talking about the Armenian leaders` attempts to get the United States to come save the Armenian republic, he begins his last volume talking about even more dictator efforts to drag America into Armenia so they could remain in power and obtain free Muslim lands with American protection.

Though the Armenians continued to hope for a miracle, they had to face the reality that there was virtually no possibility of a mandate. By the beginning of 1920, many Armenian spokesmen and supporters had already shifted their efforts toward obtaining direct political, military, and economic assistance for the Armenian republic. Nonetheless, American religious, civic, and relief officials with experience in the Near East, insisting that a separate Armenian national existence was not feasible without foreign supervision and protection, continued to advocate an American mandate. President Wilson ultimately decided in May 1920 to put the responsibility squarely on the Senate. But he requested authorization for the mandate at a time when rejection was a foregone certainty, making his action seem either pathetically naive or brazenly cynical. (1)

Hovannissian has become too accustomed to dealing with dictators. The United States is a republic and operates as a true democracy. It is the duty of a president to ask the Senate to commit troops, money, equipment, and protection to a foreign state for an extended period of time. Hovannissian and the dictator Armenian leaders he admires wanted Wilson to simply "decree" that the United States would accept a mandate and "protect" Armenians and all they had stolen from their neighbors. When President Wilson acted in a responsible, lawful manner, the Armenian leaders and their lackeys turned on him by making vicious attacks on Wilson’s honor and character.

There were voices of reason coming from experienced Americans who had personal knowledge of the situation in Armenia.

One was Caleb F. Gates, a missionary and president of Robert College in Istanbul. He shared High Commissioner Mark Bristol’s views that the United States should take a role in developing the entire Near East and that the retention of the Ottoman Empire as a single entity would be the best way of simultaneously fulfilling that objective and safeguarding American interests and the open-door principle in trade and investment. Gates did not rule out an autonomous or independent Armenia some time in the future, but he believed that attempts to create such a state immediately would result in tragic consequences for the Armenians themselves (P 2)

This has proven to be sound advice. In the year 2000, for example, Turkey and the United States did more than 7 billion dollars in trade with each other. Armenians, on the other hand, can’t point to trade with the United States. This poverty-ridden state continues to suck billions of dollars in foreign aid out of America. Money is a one-way street for today’s Armenians – all of it one way from the pockets of United States` taxpayers and Christian organizations to the pockets of terrorist Armenian leaders who use it in such a way to promote a war with their Muslim neighbor, Azerbaijan.

Hovannissian complains that "the missionary lobby though it continued to gather funds for the ‘starving Armenians` refrained from publicly campaigning for a mandate» (P 3) Perhaps Hovannissian, even though he has lived many years in the United States, Isn’t aware of the concept of separation of church and state. Even Turkey, whom Hovannissian condemns, has total separation of church and state. Armenia, with its constitutionally mandated one and only "official church," makes that little state different. Perhaps this is why the Armenian professor attacks American Christians for not doing the bidding of Armenian terrorists, like the church does in his native land.

The Armenian press denounced the joint-mandate scheme and roundly criticized those who were trying to alleviateArmenian hunger but who endorsed the single – or triple – mandate plan.... Nonetheless, the elements associated with the Armenian National Union of America and the Armenian National Delegation in Paris were alarmed by the brash and insulting characterizations of the missionaries in the Dashnakist press and feared these would alienate the very people whose support and sympathy were essential for a satisfactory resolution of the Armenian question. The National Union continued to work closely with the missionary lobby... (P 3)

Think about this: If Americans, in giving millions of their hard-earned dollars to help "starving Armenians," didn’t toe exactly the Armenian terrorist/dictator line, they were to be condemned. Now Isn’t that gratitudel James Gerard, president of the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia, wrote a letter on April 29,1920, that expressed the attitude of the Armenian terrorists. "The president has the power to direct the Secretary of War to sell munitions to Armenia, and I suppose, if necessary, Great Britain may be asked to make delivery of such munitions beyond Batoum. Then we should lend our moral support to the Armenian Government to float a loan of $50,000,000 or more in this country. It seems to me that this is all we can do until the next election» (P 9)

Think about this fact, American taxpayer: First, the Armenian terrorists wanted the President of the United States to by-pass Congress and sell arms to Armenia. Second, the Armenian leaders had no money, so it goes without saying, that the President would have to sell these munitions on credit and then get the British to deliver them for free to Armenia.

In addition, the Armenian bandits wanted 50 million dollars or more in loans within the United States. That was all the Armenian leaders thought they could get until the next American elections. What business did, or does a rogue state have, sending paid agents into the United States to lobby for money and arms and then meddle in American elections to try to get more free stuff?

No foreign state should be allowed to lobby, establish state-run colonies, and build foreign-state political organizations to try to influence American elections of the U.S. Congress. This is exactly what Armenia did and continues to do in the United States and elsewhere throughout the Christian world.

In the end, the U.S. government in 1920 did the common sense thing: Hovannissian complains, the United States neither sent arms nor suspended the foreign enlistment act. These and other provisions of the Williams resolution were made unrecognizable in the final recommendations of the Harding subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The resolution adopted by the Senate on May 13, 1920 simply congratulated the Republic of Armenia on being recognized by the United States, wished the Armenians well, and authorized the president to dispatch a battleship to the port of Batum to be ready to assist American citizens in case of need. All the professions of sympathy by Henry Cabot Lodge and other leading Republicans produced nothing more tangible in support of the Armenian republic (P 10)

Can any American taxpayer believe this attitude? As if the U.S. government owed this terrorist state anything!

President Wilson, ever the Christian preacher’s son, continued to emphasize "the American desire to see a Christian people succored in their time of suffering and lifted from abject distress to be made whole and able to take a place among the free nations of the world» (P 13) Hovannissian doesn’t appreciate Wilson for this simple reason: He just didn’t do what the bandit Armenians wanted of him when they wanted it done.

Consider these words of Hovannissian:

Wbodrow Wilson had made all the wrong arguments byplay-ing upon altruistic, humanitarian, and religious motives and even excusing the European powers as being overburdened. He had not organized a national campaign to influence public opinion or gain popular support; he had not attempted a bipartisan approach to Congress and had acted against the advice of Senate Minority Leader Gilbert Hitchcock of Nebraska; most of all, he was ambiguous and vague. He failed to define the territory over which the mandate was to extend, the terms and conditions of the mandate, the expenses and obligations involved, and the advantages and benefits to the United States. He made no direct use of the Harbord report and recommendations, and he gave no reasoned arguments based on American national interests, including investment opportunities, markets, and other economic and strategic considerations. For Senator Lodge and the bloc of irreconcilable senators who had raised their voices against the pitfalls of internationalism, President Wilson’s message was but another example of his ineptitude and vulnerability (P 1 4)

Just who is this man to make such irresponsible allegations against the president of the United States, because he refused to be an unpaid agent for Armenians? Can any fair person believe the nerve this Armenian has to "claim" to give the Armenians all they wanted was in the American interests – there were `American national interests, including investment opportunities, markets, and other economic and strategic considerations».

There are no American markets in Armenia.

There are no investment opportunities in Armenia. Armenians wanted American investors to give to their bandits under "claims" of business and then the Americans would lose their investments.

There are no true American national interests in Armenia.

There are no American economic and strategic considerations in Armenia. Armenia’s only export is terrorism, which is not wanted in the United States.

This professor blames Wilson for not spelling out the "terms and conditions of the mandate" the American taxpayer would pay for. He also brags and complains the president didn’t put faith in the "advantages and benefits to the United States" and for not giving in to the paid Armenian lobby campaign in the United States.

On May 24, 1920, President Woodrow Wilson sent a message to the U.S. Senate stating he was aware of the needs of the Armenian people and he expressed the "voice of the American people expressing their genuine convictions and deep Christian sympathies, and intimating the line of duty, which seemed to them, to lie before us» (2)

The president then asked Congress to allow him executive power to accept a "mandate" to protect Armenia.

Wilson stated: "I make this suggestion in the earnest belief that it will be the wish of the people of the United States that this be done. The sympathy with Armenia has proceeded from no single portion of our people, but has come with extraordinary spontaneity and sincerity from the whole of the great body of Christian men and women in this country, by whose free-will offerings Armenia has practically been saved at the most critical juncture of its existence. At their hearts this great and generous people have made the cause of Armenia their own» (3)

President Wilson concluded his message to Congress:

I make the suggestion in the confidence that I am speaking in the spirit and in accordance with the wishes of the greatest of the Christian peoples. The sympathy for Armenia among our people has sprung from untainted consciences, pure Christian faith, and an earnest desire to see Christian people everywhere succored in their time of suffering, and lifted from their abject subjection and distress and enabled to stand upon their feet and take their place among the free nations of the world. Our recognition of the independence of Armenia will mean genuine liberty and assured happiness for her people, if we fearlessly undertake the duties of guidance and assistance involved in the functions of a mandatory. (4)

The Armenian government, with the help of the Armenian Church, concocted the first "foreign nation" scam in U.S. history. The very ill president was fleeced and deceived by the Armenians. Clearly, he did all he could do to try to help Armenia. Once the U.S. Senate rejected the president’s request for the mandate, the Armenians turned on him.

Before President Wilson requested the mandate he sent Major General James G. Harbord to Turkey and Armenia on a fact-finding mission. General Harbord was named Chief of the American Military Mission.

General Harbord wrote in his report dated October 19,1919: "For years America has been very keenly alive to the sufferings of the Armenians. America has also given large sums, through its missionary agents in Armenia, through its Red Cross work, and recently in the distribution of food and supplies for the destitute of all races in the Near East» (5)

The general goes on to write about his early Christian knowledge:

In the old family Bible the name Armenia generally appears for a country south of the Caucasus with its center near Mount Ararat, extending across Asia Minor in the general direction of Alexandretta. We know that the power of the Armenian kings extended for a time to the Mediterranean and to Sivas in the West, which was once the seat of the Armenian kings. The map of Armenia, which their delegates would have us consider, is bounded on the north by the Black Sea, Georgia and Azerbaijan, and extends in a south easterly direction to include the cities of Alexandretta and Mersina on the Mediterranean. (6)

The general makes a very pro-Christian, anti-Muslim report. He uses as evidence what he is told by Armenians rather than conducting an American-directed fact-finding mission. However, because he did use Armenian information as fact, his reports make for interesting reading. He states: "The massacres of 1915-16 totaled some 600,000 of whom not less than 500,000 came from within the borders of this new proposed state. Probably an equal number were deported from the same area» (7)

Today, Armenians claim that 1.5 million are massacred, yet the Armenians of 1919 who were lobbying General Harbord claim only 600,000 were massacred. The general says the Armenians claim another 500,000 were deported. These are close to the actual count of some 1 million Armenians being in Anatolia.

How can this be? If there were only 1.1 million living in eastern Anatolia as General Harbord stated, how could the Turks massacre 1.5 of them? Isn’t this yet one more of the many examples of Christian Armenians keeping two sets of books?

From the time the General left Paris on his mission, Armenians told him that "the Turks under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha were making extensive preparations to attack Armenia from across the borders. That Mustafa Kemal Pasha had distributed 60,000 rifles with ammunition and grenades to the Turkish civilian population in the vicinity of Erzurum, and had organized divisions and bands. It was stated that one purpose of this movement was to prevent the return of Armenians to their homes. Although I would not trust Mustafa Kemal Pasha, we saw nothing to confirm this in Paris report» (8)

This is nothing more than yet another tall tale that the Armenians would become famous of making up and telling. The actual truth is that it would be the Armenians, who in a few months, would "begin extensive preparations" to attack the Turks. Armenians claimed Georgia was making plans to invade, when in truth, it was Armenia who invaded Georgia in a land-grab attempt. The Armenians licked their wounds and claimed that Azerbaijan was "making extensive preparations" to attack them.

General Harbord observed that "strategically Armenia is in a very serious situation. The only railway entering it passes through Georgian territory. This is practically the only means for bringing supplies into Armenia. It is always with the greatest difficulty that these shipments are arranged. The base port, Batum, is in territory hostile to Armenia and Armenians. In addition to having such a perilous line of communications, Armenia itself is surrounded by enemies and she is now involved in almost 360 degrees of border troubles» (9)

The reason Armenia had "border troubles" on all sides is because Armenia always tried to gobble up its neighbors` lands. Can anyone wonder why Armenia’s neighbors were "hostile"? How would anyone react if they were one of Armenia’s neighbors?

The general also reported how Azerbaijan asked him to help remove an "American missionary, who, they say was mixed up in political questions be withdrawn» (10) History sadly reflects that all too often American missionaries did mix politics and religion when it came to dealing with Armenians.

When the actual Senate floor debate began, the senator of Nebraska observed, "I believe it has been stated that something like 800,000 American citizens contributed some $40,000,000 for charity in Armenia, and it seems to me that among those same people will probably be found a large number who will purchase Armenian lands...» (11)

The Armenians` paid agents and members of the Armenian-American colony had done this job and done it well as evidenced that their fund-raising campaign among the Christians of the United States produced more than 40,000,000 dollars for Armenia. The people of the United States can be thankful the Armenia land proposal was rejected by the Congress. Otherwise, countless hundreds of thousands of American investors would have lost their money in a few short months when Armenia voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. The U.S. government lost 50,000,000 million dollars in loans when Armenia refused to even attempt to make a single payment.

Senator Williams of Mississippi stated, Armenia is an isolated and insulated Christian community surrounded by hereditary enemies. She is not able to defend herself now. Turks, Kurds, Georgians, for the most pan Mohammedans, are seeking her throat with knives all the time. Her people are members of the oldest Christian church in existence on this earth». This has always constituted an appeal to the sympathy and the better and higher feeling of the American people. The Senator added: "My heartstrings are tied very closely to the history of this remarkable people-remarkable in very many more ways than one, but especially remarkable for their abiding faith» (12)

Such "Christian" remarks were repeated time and time again as senator after senator debated this question. All senators were in agreement about "Christian" Armenia for one basic reason: No one ever bother to check the entire historical record to determine if Armenians were truth tellers or tellers of tall tales. The passage of time proves clearly that the Armenians were people who made up tall tales over and over again.

Senator Smith of Georgia commented that the Armenian country, as described by the commission (Harbord), is rough and barren. France and England have taken the rich oil wells and copper mines. They have taken that which promises them and their people a handsome return. To the United States they offer that which can bring nothing but heavy loss of money and lives.

We had an opportunity a few years ago of exercising a mandatory over Mexico. The Armenian mandatory would be for more complicated, dangerous and expensive than would have been a temporary supervision of Mexican territory. We did not even declare war against Turkey, and the supervision and adjustment of the Armenian problem properly rests with England, France, and those countries which were in the war with Turkey. (13)

Senator Brandegee of Connecticut raised a series of questions for the Senate to consider.

When would our duties to civilization as mandatory of the Armenians cease? Who is to be the judge of that? Who is to decide what the duties are, whether or not they have been satisfactorily performed, or when they are to determine? Are we to decide those questions? If the Armenians have now, as I understand, organized a republic and desire to govern themselves, by what authority do we walk over there with armies and navies and proceed to govern them? We have not declared war with either Turkey nor Armenia.

Senator Brandegee pointed out how Mr. Gerard of Armenia was lobbying the State Department and the Senate. The Senator also talked about how the Armenian Church was directly involved in the lobby efforts of the U.S. Senate. The senator said:

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts put into the record this morning a statement, addressed to our State Department, and formulated by Mr. Gerard, who was recently ambassador to Germany, setting forth what would be of substantial aid and assistance to the Armenian people, with whom everybody sympathizes in their troubles. There appeared before several members, at least of the Foreign Relations Committee, a delegation visiting the members of the committee, consisting of the bishop or archbishop of Erzurum – I suppose his jurisdiction goes over a large pan of Armenia – together with the minister or ambassador or whatever his title may be, from Armenia and a noted and distinguished Armenian who is a college professor in Yale University.

Senator Reed of Missouri was very direct in his observations. He noted that France had accepted a mandate over Syria and England had taken Mesopotamia. "Now we are asked to take charge of the so-called Republic of Armenia. The plain intend-ment of the whole business is that we will do in Armenia exactly what is being done by France and England».

The senator went on to say:

Let us see England had troops in Armenia, and England withdrew them. She said, `We will take care of Mesopotamia, and no more.` France had troops in Armenia and she with-drew them. She said, `We will take care of Syria and no more.` England took jurisdiction over Palestine. She did not take a mandate in Persia; she took Persia. Then she went north of the new territory of Armenia as mapped out, and she took Caucasus as is indicated on the map clear up to the sea of Azov. She seized that territory because it embraced the rich oilfields ofBatum and Baku. There was left Armenia, a country of mountains and waste places. The question was asked in the British parliament why England had not continued in Armenia? This is what Lloyd-George said on the 29th day of April, speaking to parliament.

The British Prime Minister was quoted as saying that neither Great Britain, France, nor Italy was able to undertake a mandate for Armenia because it would have involved heavy military resources for a great conquest if the Armenians were to have anything more than a paper Armenia. (14)

The senator went on to observe: "This country lies 6,000 miles from our shores. The proposed Armenia embraces a large part of what was formerly Turkey. In fact, the Turkish Empire is cut in two and a part of it is denominated by Armenia. To this has been added, toward the east and northeast, another large body of land formerly under Russian control. The whole comprises a strip of land extending from the Mediterranean almost to the Caspian Sea. It lies immediately north of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. As I have stated, the Turkish Empire is thus cut in two» (15)

Senator Reed thereupon shared a part of U.S. Army General Harbord’s report:

We estimate a total of perhaps half a million refugee Armenians as available to eventually begin life anew in a region about the size of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

This Trans-Caucasian region is ethnographically one of the most complicated in the world. In all ages it has been one of the great highways for mankind. Here stragglers and racial remnants have lodged during all the centuries that the tides of migration have swept the base of the great Caucasus Range, until today its small area contains five great racial groups, divided into some 40 distinct races. Nine of these have arrived in comparatively recent times, but the remaining 31 are more or less indigenous. There are here 25 purely Caucasian races. This racial diversity is complicated by the fact that with the exception of the fairly compact group of Georgians and one of Tartars these peoples are inextricably commingled throughout the region. Their civilization varies from the mountain savage to individuals of the highest types. Of the 40 district races the most important groups are the Georgians, the Azerbaijanis, Tartars, and the Armenians. (16)

Senator Reed thereafter stated: "Let us for a moment further consider the hornet’s nest which we are invited to enter. The country over which we are asked to accept a mandate is surrounded by over 250,000,000 Mohammedans, on every side it is bounded by Mohammedans. It may be interesting to some of the members of the Senate to know that Mohammedonism is gaining proselytes faster probably than is Christianity. Proselytizing for the Mohammedan faith has been going on for a long period of time. Its activities for a decade have been enormously multiplied» (17)

Senator Reed voiced great wisdom when he said: "Let those who talk about `the unspeakable Turk`, who treat with contumely the moor, who refer in scan to the Mohammedan religion, remember that it counts as its adherents 250,000,000 of the earth’s inhabitants. Will such a people thus united by religion and largely of blood kin forever submit to robbery, to plunder, and to mastery.What has been perpetrated against them? England concluded she wanted Egypt. She took it at the point of the sword. Was there opposition? We heard but little of it; and yet, sir, in 1915 England had to withdraw enormous forces from points on the front where they were needed in order to put down the rebellions that were started.

But for a moment let me digress from that immediate thought. France, without any more title to the country than the United States had, proceeded by armed force to take possession of immense territories in Algiers. It was an act of robbery, by force major, pure and simple, and England but recently, with the hand of steel, wearing, it is true, the glove of diplomacy, has taken possession of Persia. By the sword she has seized Mesopotamia.

I think we may say that last act is justifiable as a punishment for the war, and that there is a title, a war title, a blood title, to that land. France has taken Syria. They call it a mandate, but it is an armed invasion and an armed holding. Again, that title of France, based upon this war, may have some kind of justification in our mind. These, however, are only a few of the instances of cold-blooded and deliberate invasion and robbery that have been going on for many years. (18)

Senator Reed continued his speech to the U.S. Senate by discussing the religion of Islam.

I am speaking of the Moslem world as a whole, not of just Turkey. I have already said that this Moslem world is bound together by a religious tie, and I am not dreaming. I am voicing a fear that has been expressed by the statesmen of the world for many years, viz, that these continued wrongs and outrages are the seed from which a bloody crop some will day be harvested.

Returning now to a theme that I started to discuss a moment ago, I challenge attention to the fact that the Moslem world is united, and in the most dangerous way united, that the menace is recent, and that at any time it may become manifested in a tremendous uprising.

... That is the hornet’s nest into which we are invited. Land after land has been taken by the sword. People after peoples have been brought into subjection, a rule by martial law substantially established the fires of hate have been set burning in the hearts of 250,000,000 people. Revolt after revolt has occurred; revolt after revolt will occur so long as these people cling to their faith, so long as they have the blood of courage in their veins.

Now, sir, the proposition is that there shall be carved out a strip of territory substantially extending from the Caspian to the Black Sea and stretching southward to the Mediterranean. That strip of territory cuts the Moslem world in two. It is proposed that America shall assume the control and management of the country thus created. With all due respect to any critic who splits hairs at phraseology, I say that whoever accepts the mandate must defend the country.

That means, sir, that if the Moslem world shall seek to throw off the thralldom of England, France, or Italy, The soldiers of the United States will form the wall of flesh and blood which will be expected to break the force of the Moslem assault. I pass no reflection upon Gen. Harbord, but whoever reads his report will see that as far as possible he undertook to sustain a mandate in Armenia.

Yet he states there must be 60,000 troops there at the present time. Now, let us see what is likely to happen if we have 60,000 American boys in this worse than a cockpit of the world, in this bloody forum every inch of which is saturated with the gore, which has been poured from the veins of men for 3,000 years. There will be an attack. These peoples are never at peace. I have already shown that the new republics, or so-called republics, are at war at this present hour. (19)

Senator Reed and the U.S. Senate were wise in rejecting the Armenian mandate. History has shown the Muslim world did rise up against the conquest of their lands by the English and French. Both England and France paid a bloody price for attempting to occupy Muslim lands and in the end they were forced to retreat and abandon their World War I conquests.

The Armenians made up their claims about how the Turks slaughtered and massacred 1.5 million of their people. Senator Reed, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, questioned how the Armenians could have allowed such a thing to happen. The truth was there were very few Turkish law enforcement officers or soldiers traveling with the properly deported Armenians.

Senator Reed spoke to this question:

What of the Armenians? I belong to that class of men who never attack a race as a race, for I know of no race that has ever attained to any degree of civilization that has not possessed many virtues and that has not produced some men of eminence that they would adorn any other country by their presence and citizenship. But when we speak of this question, we must consider the aggregate, and what of the Armenians in this aggregate?

To begin with, if he was the right kind of man, speaking broadly, the things that have occurred could never have happened. We are told that Armenians have been slaughtered, entire families put to death, without a hand being raised. We read stories of Turkish soldiers coming to a home, murdering the entire family, including the husband and father, like so many pigs, and that no one was killed save the Armenians. That would not be possible with our race. If a massacre were proclaimed in this country by some dominate race we might be massacred, but our lives would be sold and paid for 10 to 1.

It has happened many times in our history – little frontier settlements of only a few men and women in the forest have been attacked by overwhelming hordes of savages – but whoever heard of an American frontiersman laying down his gun while the Indians slit his wife’s throat and scalped his children? Always we read the story of windows barred and doors closed and of firing until the last bullet was gone, then of the battle with the clubbed rifle until the defender of the home was stretched stark upon the sward. Then, and not until then, did they get at his wife and babies. (20)

What would Senator Reed have said if he had known the Armenian Church had preached rebellion and taught its flock to arm themselves? The evidence is overwhelming that individual Armenians were indeed heavily armed when World War I began. What Senator Reed says is true – a people of any character would have defended themselves under such conditions. The Ottoman removal caravans were undisputed to have been overwhelmingly Armenian the question begs to be asked: Because the Armenians were heavily armed, why did they just stand by and allow their wives and children, parents and grandparents to be slaughtered? The truth is Armenians would not have just stood aside and allowed 1.5 million (or any number for that matter) to be murdered in cold blood with out a fight.

The Armenians claim to be brave and fearless warriors who played an important role in helping the Allies win World War I (although there is much evidence to the contrary that Armenians did much of anything). If they were such brave and fearless people why didn’t they defend themselves from the "terrible Turk" that they hated so much?

Senator Reed has put his finger on the heartbeat of truth. There was no Turkish massacre because there was no attempt of self-defense. The Armenian Church priest who conceived the idea for this tall tale realized his story would sound better if he said "massacre" and "slaughter».

Senator Reed carefully examined all of General Harbord’s report in concluding that he did not believe the Armenian "slaughter" and "massacre" story.

But I step aside for a moment to call attention to the evidence of the character of this people, and as I do so I challenge your thought to the statement I made a moment ago that General Harbord wrote as favorable report as he could. I find here page after page devoted to the most pathetic accounts of the slaughter of Armenians and the cruelties of the Turks. They are painted not so much with the pen of the military writer, who generally deals in hard, cold facts with-out ornamentation, but rather they are expressed by the brush of a master artist of diction, who has expressed all of his ability, presented in a single sentence, is a fearful statement; I give it as a picture of the Armenians by the friend of the Armenians. The author has just concluded this graphic depiction of Turkish cruelties, of women ravished, of children starved, of houses burned, of cities plundered, and people dragged into slavery or worse than slavery by the Turks. Then comes this statement:

In the territory untouched by war from which Armenians were deponed the ruined villages are undoubtedly due to Turkish deviltry, but where Armenians advanced and retired with the Russians their retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity. (21)

Senator Reed calls attention to another statement General Harbord made in his report:

The Armenian is not guiltless of blood himself; his memory is long and reprisals are due, and will doubtless be made if opportunity offers. Racially allied to the wild Aryan Kurd, he is cordially hated by the latter. Kurds appealed to this mission with tears in their eyes to protect them from Armenians who had driven them from their villages, appealing to be allowed to go back to their homes for protection against the rigorous winter now rapidly approaching on the high interior plateau. The Kurds claim that many of their people were massacred under the most cruel circumstances by Armenian irregulars accompanying the Russian Bolshevists when the Russian Army went to pieces after the collapse of the empire.

Similar claim is made by the people of Erzurum, who point to burned buildings in which hundreds of Turks perished, and by the authorities of Hassan-Kola, who give the number of villages destroyed by the Armenians in their great plain as 43. According to British Counsel Stevens, at Batum, these statements were verified by a commission which examined into the allegations and which Armenians had representation. In Baku the massacre of 2,000 Azerbaijanese by Armenians in March, 1918, was followed by the killing of 4,000 Armenians by Azerbaijanese in November of the same year. (22)

Proof of the senator’s statements are found in the pages of the personal diary written by Lieutenant Colonel Tverdokhleboff, a Russian who was the provisional Commandant of the Fortresses of Erzurum and Deveboynu, commanding the 2nd Artillery Regiment, Erzurum. The colonel states "the Russian Army of the Caucasus evacuated the stations they had previously occupied towards the middle of December 1917, without having orders from G.H.Q or any of the Army commanders, began their withdrawal». The colonel and other officers remained in Erzurum because they had not received orders to retreat.

The Russian colonel states that after the Russian troops left, an Armenian Revolutionary committee was set up in Erzurum. He writes in his diary: "Towards the middle of January 1918, some Armenians of the infantry detachment murdered a Turkish notable of Erzurum in his dwelling and looted the house».

This was the beginning of horrors committed by Armenians on Turks. The Russian notes that "in those days the Armenians were perpetrating indescribably cruel murders among the poor Turkish inhabitants of the neighborhood of Erzindjan; the Turks were unarmed and without any means of self-defense». See a completed diary account (23} Senator Reed was exactly right to conclude that the Armenians did not have clean hands and were guilty of committing terrible crimes against the Turks. The Armenians never brought a single criminal charge nor objected to these acts of terror in any way.

On this point Senator Reed said:

so that it is a case of eastern barbarism on both sides, each of them responding to the hate of centuries, each of them pursuing the same methods and tactics. Over this cesspool of criminality, of cruelly, of villainy, of race hatred the United States is asked to assume control, and to do it because the countries that have, speaking broadly, stolen the lands of these people all over the world decline to take control because it is expensive. As usual – and I am going to use the slang expression, as much as it may be out of place in the Senate – Uncle Sam is to hold the sack. As I have said, when once they are drawn in, when once a single American soldier has shed his blood then America must stand back of the issue. (24)

This is exactly what happened in Vietnam. Once American soldiers were killed, the United States was honor bound to make a total commitment to the war. Had the United States made such a commitment to Armenia in 1920 – Armenia would have become the first Vietnam of the twentieth century. The U.S. Senate used good judgment in not placing American boys in harm’s way just to give a gaggle of ungrateful Armenians lands belonging to Muslims. Both the English and the French learned this lesson the hard way; countless numbers of their young men died before the Muslim world forced them out of the lands they occupied. Had Americans been in Armenia they would have experienced the same results.

There were several reasons the U.S. Senate rejected the Armenian’s mandate. Armenia was the cesspool of Europe, the cost was too much, and the United States could never leave this part of the world because of the situation. There were also the needs of the American people as explained by Senator Reed.

Senator Reed also spoke of the great needs of Americans. He questioned the wisdom of spending three-quarters of a billion dollars or more, committing some 72,000 American troops more than 6,000 miles from home.

The senator said, "We are asked to enter upon this mandate while the gravest tasks at home remain unfulfilled. Eleven per cent of our people are unable to read and write; our school teachers paid wages that frequently are not equivalent of the hire of the ordinary servant girl. Our school children are insufficiently supplied with textbooks. All this in a land the government of which rests upon the intelligence of the governed.

Here are unexampled resources not yet developed – rivers to be harnessed, swamp lands to be reclaimed, desert stretches to be irrigated, wonderful natural resources not yet employed. Here are 20,000,000 acres of overflowed land in the Mississippi Valley alone as rich as is the soil of the treasured valley of the Nile, and yet when we came to the rivers and harbors appropriation we cut it to a meager 12,000,000 dollars upon the claim that the money could not be spared. The entire sum would, in my opinion, not support an army of sixty thousand men in Armenia for one month’s time. Here are our people driving over dirt roads, hauling produce to market over country lanes, wasting time and energies that are of incalculable account, because we have not asked, like the foolish crusaders of medieval times, to go into other lands to waste our energies, playing cat’s-paw for the designing rulers of the great nations of Europe.

"But, while we do all this, there are not only ignorant people in our country but there are unfortunate people. There is not a city of this land where little children are not crowded together in hovels, where women are not working in sweat-shops, where mothers are not looking through eyes blinded with tears at the pinched faces of the weans they love. There is not a place in all this land but contains some brain pinched by the vise of circumstances, of some child or youth denied development because there is not money enough to go around» (25)

Senator Robinson of Arkansas commented that "for years generous citizens of the United States have contributed enormous sums to charitable funds designed to relieve oppression. It is the consensus of opinion of those who have investigated conditions in Armenia that such relief is only temporary in character and is in no sense adequate to the demands of the situation» (26)

The question readily comes to mind: Now that the United States is making an average of annual 100-million-dollar payments in foreign aid more than eighty years after Senator Robinson made this statement, would the Senator consider that – 100 million dollars per year as of 2002 enough temporary funding for the tiny place called Armenia? When will this unlimited giving by Americans to Armenians end? There is no end in sight based on the logic of the U.S. Congress.

When one reads the entire Senate debate on the question of an Armenian mandate, it is clear that the reason for the debate is because Armenia represents Christianity rather than Islam.

It is past time to wake up and see the Armenians for what they really are.

Senator Brandegee argued that "Christian pulpits everywhere resound with the same topic. The people of America especially, and of England, too, have always sympathized with the wretched Armenians. They have always, of course, because they were brother Christians and because they seemed helpless in the land of the Turks, sympathized with them» (27)

Senator Thomas argued that under the circumstances it would be little short of madness for the United States to enter upon this new and untried mission, fraught with so many terrible contingencies and bound to encourage demands for mandates elsewhere.

The bottom line is this: In 1920 Armenians lobbied the U.S. Congress to provide a fully equipped army of seventy-two thousand troops at a five-year cost to American taxpayers of three-quarters of a billion dollars. And to think – the United States was never at war with the Ottoman Empire.

The U.S. Senate rejected the mandate. Clearly the U.S. government and the American taxpayers owed Armenia nothing.

Consider this Armenian professor’s reaction to the American Congress` refusal to give in to wild Armenian schemes. Hovannissian attacks the properly elected American U.S. Senators with these words: "Debate...began on May 29. Just five days after Woodrow Wilson had sent over his message. Everything was expected, as there were no hearings or studies conducted on the president’s request, nor were alternative ways of helping Armenia considered in committee. Lodge was determined to scotch the scheme entirely, embarrass and humiliate the president, and compel the Democrats either to break with their leader or suffer the political consequences of supporting an unpopular proposal» (28)

"Unpopular proposal" is an understatement and the U.S. Senate did the right thing even if Armenian Hovannissian doesn’t like it. He complains about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not holding hearings on the president’s request to give to terrorist Armenians. Someone should tell Hovannissian this is a clear waste of U.S. taxpayers` money. U.S. Senators don’t need endless hearings to know a bad deal when they see one.

Hovannissian makes a vicious attack on President Wilson and Senator Lodge. Yet consider what the senator said in saying "no" to the Armenians terrorist dictators. He again voiced his "very deepest sympathy for Armenia" before declaring: "I am utterly opposed to taking a mandate and binding ourselves to keep an army of at least 60,000 American troops in Armenia for an indefinite time. There is no desire to turn a completely deaf ear to their cry for help, for they are a brave people and have struggled for centuries to preserve their religion and their liberty, and I think, must appeal to every American sympathy; but that is wholly different from taking the mandate and assuming the care of that country for we cannot say how many years to come» (29)

Can any American mother, father, or taxpayer not rejoice and say a deep and heartfelt "thank you" to the U.S. Senate for saying "no" to the Armenian terrorists of 1920, regardless of how this Armenian professor attacks them?

The final U.S. Senate debate was held on June 1, 1920.

Henry Cabot Lodge coordinated the campaign that poked numerous holes in the proposal for an Armenian mandate. The critics pointed to the fact that the responsibilities and obligations for a state whose boundaries has not yet even been determined were at best moot; that the United States was being saddled with the `poor house` of the world, whereas England and France were reserving the most lucrative regions for themselves; that American mothers would not allow their sons to be sacrificed in a far-flung `plague spot`; that the costs associated with the mandate would be prohibitive; that the Monroe Doctrine of non-entanglement should be preserved; that the underhanded champions of the League of Nations were trying to force the United States into that organization `through the back door`; that `charity begins at home`; and serious domestic problems should receive priority over foreign humanitarian considerations; and that it was unconstitutional to tax Americans for altruistic services. (30)

Any one of these reasons was good enough not to send American troops to Armenia. Consider how Hovannissian attacks President Wilson: "In response, the overpowered supporters of the president could only recite humanitarian and altruistic arguments; Wilson had not armed them with facts and figures and had done nothing to persuade the public of the business community that a mandate for Armenia and preserve in the Near East were in America’s own vital interest» (31)

The Senate debate brought bipartisan support to vote against the Wilson Armenian- terrorist-mandate-scheme. "Democratic Senator Hoke Smith of Georgia, asked: `Do the mothers of our country wish their boys taken for this service?` The Armenian lands were rough and barren, whereas England and France had taken rich oil wells and copper mines elsewhere. To the United States they offer that which can bring nothing but heavy loss of money and lives. "`(32)

The Armenian lobby made a last-ditch effort to get the United States to approve "the sale of Armenian bonds in the United States» (33) The U.S. Senate had the right reason to vote "no" to this scam to rip off Americans.

Armenians were in the same position as Native Americans, whose lands were taken by the Europeans beginning about four hundred years ago. Even after the United States was formed, the same policy toward Native Americans was followed. In the history of civilizations and nations, one can’t turn back the clock of time three thousand years to restore a state that might have been such as Armenia.

Hovannissian objects to what he calls "the Armenian question found its way into the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties shortly after the Senate’s action. In his keynote address at the Republican National convention in Chicago, Senator Lodge criticized Woodrow Wilson’s excessive attention to the mandate issue at a time when he was doing almost nothing for neighboring Mexico, which was in a state of chronic turmoil» (34)

Senator Lodge went on to say that Americans had "great sympathy" for Armenians "as had been demonstrated in the outpouring of charity" to help them. "The United States would no doubt help Armenia, but to control that government, to defend it through a mandate, was unacceptable. The American people would not send their sons and brothers for an uncertain length of time and spill their blood while Wilson and his kind tried to manipulate this issue to force the United States into the League of Nations» (35)

President Wilson, while not a candidate for re-election, called on the Democratic Party to pass a resolution to support Armenia. He said, "We hold it to be the Christian duty and privilege of our government to assume the responsible guardianship of Armenia...” (36) The National Democratic Party wisely rejected Wilson’s request.

Consider the following Armenian dictator attitude toward the American presidential campaign of 1920. This is amazing when one considers the fact the terrorist Armenian’s own efforts of sending paid agents into the United States to run campaigns to secure all the "free stuff" they could get. Now their public relations campaigns had gone too far and backfired because they were too greedy. The American taxpayer was aroused and the terrorist Armenian Bureau Government began to attempt to blame everyone but themselves when their selfish demands were rejected. Consider the audacity of Hovannissian as he follows the 1920 terrorist Armenian party line to blame Americans for not sending troops to give them Russian and Ottoman lands.

Armenians around the world were deeply disappointed at the turn of events and exploitation of the Armenian question for political purposes in the United States. No individual was more derisive of the tactics of Woodrow Wilson than Vahan Cardashian, director of the Armenian Press Bureau and the driving force behind the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia. In a letter to Avetis Aharovian on June 30, 1920, he explained that Senator Lodge, who controlled the Senate, had made it clear from the outset that he would block any request for permission to assume the Armenian mandate. The adamant president had refused to make any concessions to the Republicans, knowing full well that he was turning Armenia into an object of partisanship and that his proposal for a mandate would be rejected forthwith. The `obstinate, selfish, and conceited` man made the request to the Senate not to help Armenians but for his own designs. His sympathy for Armenia, Cardashian insisted, was purely political. Republican leaders Lodge, Root, Hughes, and Harding had all stated that it was within the president’s war powers to send aid and even troops if necessary to Armenia, but Wilson had not acted on that option; he wanted to thrust a mandate on the Americans in order to get the United States into the League of Nations. An American mandate, Cardashian advised was an impossibility, and further lobbying would only antagonize and alienate the Republicans, who undoubtedly would win the national elections in November. James Gerard, Cardashian continued, was working to get surplus goods and equipment to Armenia. The president had the power to grant this aid, but Cardashian was skeptical whether Wilson would exercise that authority, for if Armenia became self-sufficient there would be no further justification for his mandate scheme. The appraisal was harsh and impugned Woodrow Wilson’s sincerity and honor, yet in the aftermath of the fiasco resulting from the mandate debate in the Senate some of Cardashian’s views seem to ring true.(37)

By publishing a very private letter, Hovannissian gives a much wider audience than his beloved director of the U.S. Armenian Press Bureau "and driving force behind the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia" ever could. If America was so horrible to the terrorist dictators and their stooges in their self-called "historic homeland," why didn’t they stay there rather than come to the United States to beg for help?

Second, why didn’t Hovannissian say, in plain English, which of "Cardashian’s views seemed to ring true"? After all, the right honorable Richard G. Hovannissian is an esteemed and honored historian in his "ancient" homeland of Armenia. It is his duty to produce and provide fact, based on evidence, and to expose what is truth and what is false.

Hovannissian alleges that "Republican leaders Lodge, Root, Hughes, and Harding had all stated that it was within the president’s war powers to send aid and even troops if necessary to Armenia, but Wilson had not acted on that option...” (38)

How could President Wilson have done this because the United States never declared war on the Ottoman Empire? If the United States was never at war in your "historic homeland," professor, please explain how any president could use the war powers to send troops, supplies, and money, on his own, to your terrorist dictators?

Hovannissian made a finding of fact for historical posterity that President Wilson "wanted to thrust a mandate on the Americans in order to get the United States into the League of Nations» (3 9) Here is another question for Hovannissian; good sir, you claim to be an honest and fair historian – please explain how this could be a fair and truthful comment on your part? After all, the Constitution of the United States requires that the U.S. Senate approve all such foreign objectives. To accept a mandate to protect your Armenians is one separate issue for the senate. To become a member of the League of Nations is another separate issue requiring a different vote. It is silly and ridiculous to try to run the two votes together to reach your conclusion, in an attempt to explain away the blundered Armenian directed lobby attempts to get America to police Armenia.

One has to give these Armenian "professional beggars" credit for never giving up trying to get free stuff from Americans. Consider the audacity and gall of James Gerard. The paid Armenian agents arranged a mass rally in New York to honor "the second anniversary of Armenia».

Gerard took for granted the defeat of the mandate and called upon the president to aid and protect Armenia by the use of his executive powers, for which there were firm precedents. He wrote to Secretary of State Colby before and to Woodrow Wilson after the vote in the Senate to list measures the executive branch could do to save Armenia: Acting on the Senate resolution recommending the dispatch of a battleship to Batum; continuing the shipments of foodstuffs to Armenia; delivering equipment and supplies for an army of 40,000 to 50,000 men; assigning 50 American officers to assist in the reorganization of the army; suspending the foreign enlistment act and allowing Armenian-Americans to organize a volunteer force of 10,000 men; creating a mixed American and Armenian financial commission to raise 75 million dollars in private subscriptions, half of which would be spent in the United States; warning the Turks against further excesses against Armenians and urging the French to be more sympathetic to and protective of the Armenians in Cilicia; and asking the Allied Powers to cooperate in steps to assist Armenia. (40)

What Hovannissian conveniently overlooked is one very basic fact. The battleship the Senate authorized to go to Batum wasn’t to be sent to help Armenia. It was to be sent to protect and assist Americans.

Can anyone, other than an Armenian, believe the wish list these terrorists demanded in 1920 after the U.S. Senate rejected sending troops to protect and then help Armenians take Russian and Ottoman lands? Just think of the exact kind of "mixed American and Armenian financial commission to raise 75 million dollars in private subscriptions». The money to be raised from Americans to give to bandit Armenian leaders when there would never ever be repayment.

Hovannissian writes "that there was still a great reservoir of sympathy for Armenians in the United States as demonstrated in a telegram of sixty American bishops to President Wilson asking that the United States, the Allies, or both together furnish the Armenian republic with arms and munitions and put ashore a battalion of troops along the coast of the Black Sea or the Mediterranean « (41)

This is an example of double standard. The terrorist Armenians lobbied Christians to send such messages and then thereafter claim, as Hovannissian does here, "that there was still a great reservoir of sympathy for the Armenians in the United States». The truth is that the Armenians themselves ran a public relations campaign to create such "sympathy" by playing the religion (Christian versus Muslim) race cards.

The way the Armenian bandits attempted to slide America into their dirty wars was to demand that boundaries be set right then and there (Of course such boundaries would include Russian and Ottoman lands.) The Armenians would have Americans believe "so the refugees could return home before the beginning of the winter snows and that 50,000 tons of wheat and flour be dispatched during the winter months, as the Armenian republic could not feed the refugees without the harvest from the farmlands of Western Armenia» (P 27) There was no mention as to just who was going to pay for this wheat and flour but the terrorist Armenians intended for the American taxpayer to foot 100 percent of the bill.

Hovannissian does not make it clear just where "the harvest from the farmlands of Western Armenia" was located. From the tone of the sentence it implies these "farmlands" would be a part of the new boundaries Armenia wanted within the Ottoman Empire. If this is what Hovannissian and his Armenian dictator friends refer to, then that means only one thing. They wanted U.S. soldiers to help terrorist Armenians take farmland planted and tilled by the Turks, so Armenians could be fed, thus starving the Turkish Muslims.

Back in Istanbul, the American High Commissioner Mark L. Bristol "wrote the Department of State that he was delighted with the rejection of the mandate over Armenia; the only way to settle the Armenian problem was to solve the Turkish question by having one power assume control over the government `of a united Ottoman Empire."(P 28)

History has proven just how correct Admiral Bristol’s thinking was. Because of the foundation this experienced military officer laid in modern-day Turkey, this nation has become one of the world’s great democratic republics and a true friend of the United States. Armenia, on the other hand, has become a dictatorship and great friend of Russia.

Consider also the attitude of this gang of terrorists from Armenia while begging President Woodrow Wilson to "decree" them Ottoman lands. These Armenian thugs were ready to go to war yet once again. Consider how Hovannissian explains it: "...the Armenians had a small but well-trained army ready to advance into the four vilayets when the decision was given out. They had recently received arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and political conditions were conducive to their success despite the Bolshevik coup in Azerbaijan. They had confidence in their ability to carry out the occupation...» (P 29)

This is the same Hovannissian who a few pages back was crying about the poor quality of the Armenian army. Now it is a well-trained military force just waiting for orders to move into Ottoman lands. These are the same Armenian leaders who begged the Allies for arms and ammunition to prevent the Bolsheviks from advancing into their tiny state. Now, just as soon as they get the arms and ammunition, they want to start another war – this time with the Turks.

These dictators were slow learners. They started a rebellion within the Ottoman Empire and lost and they were all kicked out of the country. Just as soon as they became a tiny unofficial state they started a war with Georgia – and lost. They next started a war with Azerbaijan – and again lost. Now they started making plans to send troops, move into Turkish lands just before the harvest, and start another war. What manner of stupid leaders would do such things to not only their own people but also to their fellow man – all in the name of Christ?

On November 22, 1920, Wilson issued his final Armenian boundary report as the Allies had asked him to do when they bailed out of dealing with Armenia. "Unlike other parts of the world, Wilson explained, the four vilayets did not lend themselves to a boundary division based on the ethnic and religious distribution of the populations. The ethnic factor, already a complex, intermingled character, is further beclouded by the terrible results of the massacres and deportations of Armenians and Greeks, and by the dreadful losses also suffered by the Moslem inhabitants...» (P 39-40)

Here, one finds total truth from the U.S. president, who did his best to help Armenia. He states in no uncertain terms that every side involved in the war suffered great losses. Americans can believe this report by their president as contrasted to today’s Armenians who refuse to acknowledge Turkish losses, most of whom were murdered by Armenians during the World War I era.

One last point must be made to end this chapter. The Armenians coveted and desired the mostly Turkish Muslim populated four-farmland vilayets within the Ottoman Empire. These are the same lands President Wilson determined were not proper to be included within the boundary of Armenia. This is why the Armenian thugs wanted American troops to help them take these farms. Once the Americans said no, the Armenian leaders determined to go it alone to attempt to take the Ottoman lands by themselves. Once again they would be taught a lesson and lose another war.