2056) Turkey and the United States: Trading Places?

Dear Erju Bey

I do not want to argue with totally ignorant writers, who have not even read their own historians or PM Kachaznuni’s manifest.

In the very short time left just before I close for Ramadan Holidays until Monday, I have just picked some excerpts from my study, which I attach and suggest that you read and shove to whoever deserves to learn their own history and betrayal of their greatest benefactors James Barton, and Woodrow Wilson.

After reading the enclosures, you will certainly admit that guys like Jabarian or Molano, are nothing than mambo-jumbo street salesmen. To answer just the last very wrong paragraph, I clarify that

a. Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920) was not ratified by any office and the Allies did not have troops or

intentions to fulfill it.

b. If they had read their own historian Akaby Nassibian, they could have learned that Armenians attack shortly after Sevres was repulsed, and on Nov.7th and 18th they had asked ceasefire twice and on

Dec.3, 1920 with the Treaty of Gumru they dropped all their claims under Sevres, which was later ratified by Soviets with the Treaty of Moscow and a third time with Kars agreement. Sevres was a dead born baby and was buried long before Lausanne.

c. The reason why Lausanne was not ratified by USA, was again due to lobby tactics operated by a lawyer Chardishian, which is clear from the excerpts.

Trust that attachments will give you enough for the moment. For more you have to wait for my book, to shut up such big empty mouths of absolute ignorance of even their own historians.

You may consider the annex as my box of candy for the bayram.

Take care and rest assured that we are damn damn right and have nothing to be ashamed of with our forefathers. They should be ashamed of what they did and are still doing…until their LIES, LIES MORE LIES come to end even sometime late.

Best regards

S.S.Aya

---

From: Erju Ackman
Subject: Turkey and the United States: Trading Places?

What Appo glosses over was the fact that US was not a party to Lausanne. The unratified document was a side traty. Interesting and ambitious tirade...

Turkey and the United States: Trading Places?
By Appo Jabarian
Executive Publisher/Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine

appojabarian@

On the eve of the voting on the Armenian Genocide resolution by the House Foreign Relations Committee, Turkey's president Abdullah Gul "warned the U.S. government that their longtime ties will be harmed if Congress passes a resolution putting the genocide label on the mass killings of ethnic Armenians in Ottoman Turk lands during World War I," reported the Associated Press.

On the same day, Turkey's top-selling Hurriyet daily quoted the AK Party deputy leader Egemen Bagis as saying , "Don't accept this bill (HR106). If you do, we will be obliged to do many things we do not want to do."
Nowadays, Turkey is trying hard to convince the American government and the American public that they need Turkey more than Turkey needs them. However, it is blatantly obvious that it is Turkey, which is dependent on the United States.

By now, it is universal knowledge that any minor public discussion in official international circles about the Armenian Genocide causes serious loss of sleep in Ankara.

Why? There is an Armenian popular saying "kogh, sirdeh togh" which means, "The thief knows that he is a thief and constantly worries about being caught anytime." How does that apply to Turkey? The Turkish state apparatus puts on the best poker face vis-à-vis the Free World. But deep down, it knows that the time is running out. Eventually, the world community will muster enough courage and righteousness to demand Turkey to come to terms with its genocidal past and make amends to the victims, the Armenians.

Even the non-binding nature of the now-pending Armenian Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate sends shivers down the collective political spine of the occupationist and denialist Turkish state.

In an October 10 letter sent to the Glendale News Press and the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles county resident and activist Herbert Molano lambasted the self-serving special interest groups' misguiding lobbying activities:" For decades, politicians claimed Turkey was too important an ally in our conflict with the Soviet Union, and now Turkey is too important an ally in our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe the day that the U.S. stops getting into conflicts we will be in a position to demand Turkish recognition of the human atrocities during the Armenian Genocide."

Molano unmasked the Turkish lies: "Turkey has continually justified the massive loss of Armenians as the result of ethnic strife. But if that's true, then why would only one ethnicity be decimated? They also claim that the loss of life is attributable to the Great War (WW I). But if that is true, how could they account for the massacres of 300,000 Armenians from 1894 to 1896 during the repeated pogroms dictated by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid?"

Molano added: "It seems that recognizing the Genocide is too big an atrocity for Turkey to accept. Why not approach the denial by having them accept the more gradual atrocities that took place during the Young Turks formative years?

Congress has an opportunity today (Wednesday) to place moral values ahead of political practicalities."

What would it take for Turkey to come clean and start a new page in its history?
The answer is clear: the return of the territories in Western Armenia to their rightful owners, the Armenians, just as if it was demanded in 1918 by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States and later officially introduced and mandated by the Peace Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920. Turkey may contend that the Treaty of Sèvres was derailed by the Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923. Turkey must be reminded that although the Treaty of Lausanne has obstructed the Treaty of Sèvres, the U.S. Congress has never ratified it. Now you see why Turkey is deeply dependent on the United States but works hard to misrepresent the United States as being the "dependent" party. By obstinately trying to trade places with the United States, as it is the "party in charge," Turkey becomes the laughing stock of the international community.
Attachment:

---

“In 1919, drunk with victory, the Allies were about to impose a vindictive peace on the Central Powers, and to remodel Europe on nationalistic lines. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire was so total that some Allied statesmen hoped to inflict worse terms on the Ottoman Empire than on Germany, including the loss of Constantinople. The British Prime Minister Lloyd George was a believer in Mazzinian nationalism, passionately pro-Greek and an intimate of Sir Basil Zaharoff. In 1918 he had promised that Constantinople would remain Ottoman; in 1919 he declared ‘Stamboul in the hands of the Turks has been not only the hotbed of every sort of Eastern vice but it has been the source from which the poison of corruption and intrigue has spread far and wide into Europe itself…Constantinople was not Turk and the majority of the population was not Turkish’. In the disruption that followed the war, statistics were particularly hard to compile. However, according to an estimate from British officers on the spot, the population in 1920 consisted of 560,000 Moslems, 206,000 Greeks and 83,000 Armenians. Of approximately 150,000 foreigners, a large number were Greeks with Hellenic, rather than Ottoman nationality. Nevertheless, the city had a Moslem, Turkish-speaking majority. Above all, in 1919 more than ever, Turks, Greeks and Armenians each wanted a state of their own, not a shared city. Curzon’s fixation about this ‘plague spot’ led him into a militant Christianity which, when governing India, he had rejected. An essay on the Emperor Justinian had won him a prize at Oxford…”
Philip Mansel, Constantinople, St. Martin’s Press, NY, pg.382

“Yet Barton went ahead with a case against Bristol, in which in March, 1922 he presented to Secretary Hughes. The theme was that Bristol had not protected American interests in the Near East. Commending the Admiral for zeal and ability, Barton declared that Bristol ‘inclined to take the word of a Turk as more value than the word of an American’, and to defend the Turks more than the minorities. But attacking a fairly perceptive Bristol was trying to remove a symptom. The missionaries needed to think about coming to terms with the Kemalists. Relying on a West determined to behave irresponsibly about Asia Minor was not producing security for the Armenians or for the Protestants from the U.S.…Barton and other friends of Armenia could not obtain a State Dept. endorsement of the proposed dismissal of Bristol or of the Rogers Resolution. As the Allies in February and March, 1922 postponed scrapping the Sevres Treaty and reaffirmed a national home for Armenians, the American Government remained aloof. In April, 1922, the Secretary wrote Barton at length: ‘I am very sorry to say that I see no way in which this Government can, in existing circumstances, act to the advantage of the Ottoman Greeks or of the Armenians’… Then, another flicker of hope. Barton acted vigorously when in May, 1922 the British ambassador to Washington proposed a Western investigation of alleged Turkish atrocities. There had been reports of new deportations attending the Kemalist-Greek war. The executive committee of Near East Relief directed its chairman to ask Hughes to appoint a representative for the investigation.”
Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy & the Near East, U. of Minn. Press 1991, pg.261

“In August, 1920, the Ankara Government reached an agreement with Soviet Russia on the establishment of diplomatic relations, and seven months later signed a bilateral Treaty of Friendship with Moscow. Within this framework, the Soviets accepted the National Pact in its totality, including delimitation of Turkey’s frontiers, repudiated all treaties concluded between the Ottoman Empire and Czarist Russia (including the Capitulations, which had been restored by the Treaty of Sevres), and promised to extend military aid to Nationalist Turkey in its struggle against ‘imperialism’. Having secured his northern front, Kemal could concentrate his efforts on the Armenian problem. In the Treaty of Sevres Turkey had recognized the independence of Armenia, created on the ruins of the Russian, Empire. But in late-October, 1920, as Wilson was about to announce the award of large tracts of Turkish territory to Armenia, Kemal’s forces invaded the country, defeated the Armenian army, and advanced as far as Alexandropol. The following month, Russian forces invaded northern Armenia and declared the formation of a Soviet Government there. In the ensuing Treaty of Gumru (also known as Leninakan), concluded on Dec. 3rd, 1920, Armenia surrendered all its territorial gains to Turkey, including the strategic fortress of Kars and Ardahan and repudiated all claims on Turkish territories.”
Efraim & Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand, Harvard U.Press pg. 335

“In September, 1920, less than a month after the Treaty of Sevres had promised an independent Armenia incorporating part of Turkey, Ataturk’s forces attacked from the south. Despite their best efforts and the attacks of their tiny air force of three planes, the Armenians were gradually forced back. When Aharonian, the Armenian poet who had spoken for his country in Paris, tried to see Curzon in London, he was brushed off with a letter. ‘What we want to see now is concrete evidence of some constructive and administrative ability at home, instead of purely external policy based on propaganda and mendicancy’, wrote Curzon. On Nov. 17th, the Armenian Government signed an Armistice with Turkey which left only a tiny scrap of country still free. Five days later, a message arrived from President Wilson. Under the Sevres Treaty, he had been asked to draw Armenia’s boundaries; he decided it should have 42,000 km² of Turkish territory. With a nation abandoned by the world and crushed between two enemies, the Armenian prime minister said, ‘Nothing remains for the Armenians to do but choose the lesser of two evils’. In December, Armenia became a Soviet republic; the Bolshevik commissar for nationalities, Joseph Stalin, was active in bringing it to heel. The following March, the Treaty of Moscow between Turkey and the Soviet Union confirmed the return of the Turkish provinces of Kars and Ardahan to Turkey. The border has lasted to this day. Kurdistan was finished, too. By March, 1921, the Allies had backed away from the vague promises in the Treaty of Sevres. The ‘existing facts’ were that Ataturk had denounced the whole treaty; he had successfully kept part of the Armenian territories within Turkey; and he was about to sign a treaty giving the rest to the Soviet Union. Kurdish nationalists might protest, but the Allies no longer had any interest in an independent Kurdish state.”
Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919, Random House, New York, pg. 449

“Kemal ‘gladly’ accepted the offer of mediation. He added that the Turkish Government had postponed military operations in the provinces of Kars, Ardahan and Batumi on receipt of Chicherin’s note. In 1920, Armenian troops moved into Olti, a district rich in coal, on the Russian side of the pre-war Russo-Turkish frontier, as a preliminary step towards the Treaty of Sevres. Bekir Sami claimed that Olti formed part of the Ottoman Empire under the Treaties of Brest-Litvosk and Batumi. He therefore requested the withdrawal of the Armenian troops ‘without any delay’. The Armenian Government however, rejected both treaties as bases for the relations between the two countries. The district was an incontestable part of the Armenian republic. Having signed the Peace Treaty with Turkey, Armenia would await the decision of the President of the U.S. and was not crossing the former Russo-Turkish frontier. Thus, in the summer of 1920, Armenia based her claims on the Treaty of Sevres; Kemalist Turkey on the Treaties of Brest-Litvosk and Batumi although Brest-Litvosk had been renounced by Soviet Russia in the autumn of 1918. In September, 1920, Commander Luke reported to the Foreign Office that at least four battalions of Kazım Karabekir’s troops crossed the 1914 Russo-Turkish frontier, and by a surprise attack had driven the Armenians back 30 versts east of Oltu. The Armenians had suffered heavily. Having captured Olti, the Turks were advancing in large numbers towards Kars with the object of seizing the district. Armenia was certainly being squeezed by anti-Allied powers: Turks attacking on the west, Bolsheviks pressing on the north and hostile Azerbaijan maneuvering on the east.”
Akaby Nassibian, Britain & the Armenian Question 1915-23, Croom Helm, London, pg.209

“It seems that by making excessive territorial claims and by using delaying tactics, the Armenian Government was naively -and dangerously- playing for time. Encouraged by the British, the Armenian leadership was following a frightening policy of illusion. Within the next 20 days Armenia lost everything to the Turks. On Nov. 7th, an Armistice was signed between the Armenian Government and Kazım Karabekir on the latter’s terms. Karabekir perceived that since 1919, British power was ebbing in the Caucasus, and had argued, with chilling realism, that no assistance whatever would come to Armenia.”
Akaby Nassibian, Britain & the Armenian Question 1915-23, Croom Helm, London, pg.217

“… the Armenian Government had finally to sue for a fresh Armistice on Nov. 18th, Alexander Khatisian was appointed to negotiate peace with the Kemalists. The Armenian Government realized that it was obliged to make peace either with Turks or Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks assured the Armenians that they could settle the Turkish trouble immediately if Armenia ‘will denounce’(?) the Turkish Peace Treaty. The Armenian Government wanted to adopt a course which would, so far as possible, meet with the ‘approval of Britain’. Replying, Curzon stated that Britain could not be a party to a treaty with the Nationalists, but considered that the alternative of a treaty with Soviet Russia was ‘doubtless worse’. Earlier two members of the Foreign Office had similarly indicated that a peace with the Turks was ‘clearly preferable’. The offer was rejected. Armenia finally agreed to the ‘half loaf’ left by Turkey as she believed that the ‘whole loaf’ offered by Bolshevik Russia would mean ‘the loss of all sympathy in Europe’.”
Akaby Nassibian, Britain & the Armenian Question 1915-23, Croom Helm, London, pg.218

“The crushing Treaty of Alexandropol left Armenia with a territory of 27,000 km²: Kars and Surmalu, including Mount Ararat would go to Turkey; Nakhichevan and Zangezur would become Azerbaijani protectorates; Armenia would be permitted to have a detachment of only 1 500 soldiers equipped with 20 machine-guns and eight cannons; compulsory military service forbidden. Turkey would have the right to supervise goods entering Armenia. Finally, Armenia would declare the Treaty of Sevres null and void; the representatives of the Allies should leave. The only Armenian state permitted by Karabekir was a tiny protectorate wholly dependent on Turkish goodwill. The renunciation of the Treaty of Sevres by Armenia had been the pre-condition for Turkish negotiations. But it had also been the only major condition asked by Soviet Russia in return for her mediation in securing the pre-war Russian frontier. She had in addition agreed to recognize her independence. The offer was rejected. Had it been accepted, Kars and Surmalu might have been within Armenian territory, the war might have ended earlier and Karabekir’s troops would not have wrought death and destruction as thoroughly as if they were committed to annihilation.”
Akaby Nassibian, Britain & the Armenian Question 1915-23, Croom Helm, London, pg.219

“Thus it failed to draw on the support of all sections and classes and especially could not attract Armenian capital from the Diaspora… they had no resources in men or money, a member of the Foreign Office minuted. Moreover, although there was often much provocation on the part of the Tatar population within the frontiers of Armenia, the administration at times unable to prevent Armenian bands from committing excesses in Moslem villages. The result was their alienation and an increase in the hostility of both Azerbaijan and Turkey. Significantly, Baldwin twice characterized this faith as ‘blind’: Armenia …held a blind strange faith in Great Britain, who had made so many promises to help her and who had once beaten the Turks. And again, that Armenia ‘had a blind faith in England and anyone English’.”
Akaby Nassibian, Britain & the Armenian Question 1915-23, Croom Helm, London, pg.221

“I was surprised to see Dr. McCallum send through a report along this line from Constantinople. When I called attention to the report, it was stated that it came from the Armenians but the telegram did not state this, nor did it state that the Armenian reports were not confirmed by our own reports. I may be all wrong; but I can’t help feeling that I am not, because so many people out here who know the conditions agree with me that the Armenians and ourselves who lend ourselves to such exaggerated reports are doing the worst thing we possibly can for the Armenians. Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way? Let us come out and tell just what the Armenians are and then show our sympathy and do everything we can to make the future of these people what it should be for human beings…As long ago as last July I reported officially to the Department that there were strong Bolshevik feelings amongst the Armenians and that many of the Army officers were Bolshevik in sentiment. I stated then it was only a question of time when Armenia would go Bolshevik. Armenia did turn Bolshevik and was not compelled to do so by the Russians, although they may have been influenced by Russian propaganda. The Bolshevik leaders represent one party, the Dashnak represent another, and the National Democratic Party of Armenia represents another party. As far as I am concerned I can find very little difference between the party leaders of these different parties…I am not disgusted with the Armenians, and I pity them; but I cannot believe in the idea of the establishment of an independent Armenia in a country where not 25% of the people are Armenians. I do not believe the Armenians are able to govern themselves, and especially should not be allowed to govern other people; and certainly, if any of the other races here in this part of the country are under the Armenians, they are going to be submitted to oppression and outrage. I believe in helping the Armenians, but not in this way. I believe that if we come out and state all the facts regarding the Armenian question, and all combine, we can get the U.S. to help them. However, so long as we proceed along the present line I do not believe we will succeed because I don’t believe it is right…

In regard to loaning the Armenians money without Armenia being under a mandate, I believe this is an unjustifiable waste of money. For two years we have expended money in relief work for the Armenians and we supplied them flour on a loan covering over $50,000,000. What is there to show for all this vast expenditure? There is nothing to show except ingratitude, and when an emergency arose one of the greatest friends Armenia ever had, and the one that had been working and giving his best efforts for relief work amongst them had to depend upon the Turks for his own personal protection. It is a well known fact that in the beginning of our relief work flour and provisions turned over to the Armenian Government for the starving were taken by the high officials of the Government and sold for their own benefit. Then finally Armenia turned Bolshevik and repudiated all her debts; and one of these debts was for the flour we had furnished on their word of honor to repay, because they certainly had no security to offer. It was a sentimental loan based on faith in a people, and they have gone back on us…In regard to the policy of the Near East Relief, I am sure that the workers in the field do not understand the instructions that there should not be any discrimination in matters of religion in applying relief. At the assembly of workers here in Constantinople last Autumn this question was taken up and was very heatedly discussed. Mr. Vickrey himself told me that you had changed your policy, but that is neither here nor there. There is no doubt whatever a policy was carried out of giving relief only to Armenians, except in cases like Miss Cushman and Miss Graffam and Miss Allen, and some others that I might mention who know the way to establish good will in the country and therefore assist the Turks. The charge made by the Armenians in their papers that our relief organization was using 80% of all the receipts for work with the Turks and Kurds, is, I am sure you will admit, in keeping with the accuracy of the statements that the Armenians are given to making.”
(*Quick note: Unfortunately, Admiral Bristol's noble intention to lend a hand to all suffering parties was rarely given serious thought among American humanitarians. ‘Edward Fox, the American District Commander at Kars, in a telegram, dated Oct. 31st, 1920, to Admiral Bristol, the U.S. High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote that the Americans were continuing their work of looking after the Armenian children as before, that the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and that there had not been any massacres. Such missionary and philanthropic establishments protected only the children of Armenians, and never the thousands of Turkish children, who had become orphans mainly on account of Armenian massacres of their parents and families.’ Here's the source.)

The reply of Dr. Barton, head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Istanbul, dated May 6th, 1921 to Admiral Bristol. (Some lines only):
“With reference to the false reports that come through reporting massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, there is no one who can deprecate this more than I do. But there is a situation over here which is hard to describe. There is a brilliant young Armenian, a graduate of Yale University, by the name of Cardashian. He is a lawyer, with office down in Wall Street, I believe. He has organized a committee, so-called, which has never met and is never consulted, with Mr. Gerard as Chairman. Cardashian is the whole thing. He has set up what he calls an Armenian publicity bureau or something of that kind, and has a letterhead printed. Gerard signs anything that Cardashian writes. He told me this himself one time, Cardashian is out with his own people and with everybody else, except Gerard and perhaps one other leading Armenian who was in London a month ago, Pasdermadjian. Not long since Cardashian came out with a pamphlet in which he charged the Near East Relief and the American missionaries as being the greatest enemies Armenia has ever had, claiming that they, in cooperation with President Wilson, had crucified Armenia, and a lot of other matter of this character. He claims to have the latest and fullest information out from Armenia and keeps in pretty close touch with Senator Lodge, the President, the State Department, and others in Washington. He has Gerard’s backing. We have had many a conference with Armenian leaders as to what can be done to stop this vicious propaganda carried on by Cardashian. He is constantly reporting atrocities which never occurred and giving endless misinformation with regard to the situation in Armenia and in Turkey. We do not like to come out and attack him in public….When I was in London a little over a month ago, several of the leaders like Lord Bryce expressed their conviction that if the U.S. would be willing to loan money that some European nation would step in and take a mandate over some section of the Turkish Empire into which the Armenians could be gathered and thus establish a safety zone. There is no doubt that now with the temper of the Turk stirred up by the fact that the Armenians fought with the French in Cilicia against the Turk is a very severe threat to the Armenians. Many of the Armenians are still full of revolutionary spirit and I cannot but believe that in Cilicia we have all of the elements which might precipitate another series of atrocities on both sides, for I know that the Armenians have not refrained from acts of atrocity when they had the power in their hands, and that is one of the reasons why the Turks are so incensed at the present time. Dr. Martin in Antep has recently written that the Turks in the market place have threatened that when they come back into power, as they expect soon to do, they will rebuild the destroyed mosques and minarets with Armenian skulls. I fear that while we are waiting to get the U.S. to take a large view of the Near Eastern situation and a large part in its solution the Armenian element may be largely, if not wholly, eliminated…(Armenians) are a peculiar people. They have a great faculty of making themselves disliked wherever they go...I probably have suffered as much from the lack of appreciation on the part of Armenians as anyone. For 25 years I have worked for them, I doubt if there is anyone in the country that has been more frequently attacked than have I, from Cardashian down.

Some — and this number is not a few — have remained absolutely loyal and appreciative. But they are a peculiar people... Yet we must remember they are human beings with capacity for education, development and reform. I feel intensely sorry for them and am ready to work on. I would not be in favor of putting the Armenians into power anywhere without having some restraining influence among them that would prevent their ill treatment of any subject races under them…In my previous letter to you I spoke of Armenia at the time when the loan was considered an established fact. I referred of course only to the Armenia in Russia which had been recognized in Washington to the extent that it was willing to accept the signature of its officials as guarantee for the repayment of a loan, I think the same was true in England. I was not, of course, referring to any Armenia in Turkey outlined by the President…”
The following notes of a U.S. citizen researcher added:

“You refer again to the subject of caring for the children and of giving relief to others than Armenians. In the reports that I see from all over the field that seems to be what is being done. The Red Cross people have seemed to be fully satisfied with the way their contributions have been used in this respect. The most dissatisfied people we deal with are the Armenians who say that we are diverting money intended for them…”

“The pride of race brings about many singularities and prompts the Armenians to prey on missionaries, Jesuits, consuls and European traveler with rapacity and ingratitude. The poor Armenians will demand assistance in a loud tone, yet will seldom give thanks for a donation. Abuse of Consular officers and missionaries is only a part of the stock-in-trade of the extra-Armenian press.’ — Mark Sykes, ‘The Caliph’s Last Heritage’ (London, 1915)”

“Loyalty is a foreign concept to Armenians... recorded as early as the days of ancient Rome. Ara Baliozian has written: ‘... Our past is filled with countless instances of betrayal and treachery...’ Edward Tashji, who is half-Armenian, comments: ‘This last quotation, like no other statement is an inescapable and irrefutable commentary of the Armenians, not only of Ottoman Turkey, but to this very day in the U.S.’ ”

“Armenians even attacked their greatest friend, President Woodrow Wilson, for not going to bat all the way for them…All the Armenians do is take. Look at the $50,000,000 America lent them on good faith (which Admiral Bristol somewhat bitterly reports on, above), and they just turned their backs on their responsibilities. (This was in addition to the 50,000,000 they received from charitable organizations.) A people with honor would have repaid their debts... and that should have been the first order of business, once Armenia regained her freedom after the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead of giving, their lobby in the U.S. has been at work to take more money from American taxpayers... more than a billion bucks, to date. Peter Balakian speaks of a ‘ double killing‘... As a Turkish-American, I now introduce the concept of a double enraging. I am mad at the Armenians for their lies and slanders against Turkey.... but I am also mad as an American for the way Armenians have totally used my country, with the help of condescending American politicians, such as (R) James E. Rogan.”

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/bristol-barton.htm

“On Oct. 20th, 1921, an agreement was signed between the Turkish Government and M. Franklin-Bouillon, representing France. It called the unconditional withdrawal of the French troops. The overwhelming majority of the Armenian population, which had just moved back to Cilicia in 1918, joined the French in their withdrawal. This happened in spite of the fact that the Armenians in the South of Turkey were a valuable part of the Turkish community and would have been just as welcome as the Armenians were everywhere else in Anatolia. All the facts indicate that the emigration en masse of the Armenians from Cilicia was planned and programmed with a single goal in mind. Someone wanted to prove to the ‘dumb, incompetent Turks’ that things ‘simply would not work’ without the Armenian element. Trade especially international trade - would surely fall apart permanently.

But what happened was just the opposite. The tremendously capable Armenians settled by the hundreds of thousands in all the nations that were founded out of the old Ottoman Empire. (They had not been moved out in 1915; they had just been moved around!) None of these other nations, however, could possibly stand comparison with the progress made in Turkey. Only Turkey has managed to build the road to a safe, peaceful present, with a virtually certain option on an even better, peaceful future. The other states, Syria and Lebanon in particular, have meanwhile sunk into a sea of blood and terror (of which no small part is contributed by Armenian terrorists).
Speaking of Lebanon:..The French Supreme Commander in Cilicia, General Dufieux, was a notorious Turk-hater. Right up to the last moment, he avoided making contact with even a single Turk. He left Adana on Nov. 24th, 1921. Just before his departure, he visited the French war cemetery, and as he laid down the obligatory wreath he said sadly: ‘To the French soldiers who sacrificed their blood in vain.’..He could almost have been saying those words vicariously for all the French people who wish to remember the victims of terror in Lebanon and the victims of the Lebanese disaster. The incomprehensible waves of terrorism from Lebanon have in the meantime reached France and Paris, claiming countless innocent victims. They are in fact all exclusively victims of a French policy that held that France could win power and influence in the Ottoman Empire (and thus in Syria and Lebanon as well) by tolerating and even supporting Armenian terrorism...Meanwhile, countless Armenian bombs have gone off in Paris, killing many innocent French citizens. For the most part, these bombs came from Lebanon, a country which was once propped up artificially by France in order to gain influence in the Ottoman Empire.“

Erich Feigl, A Myth of Terror, Edition Zeitgeschichte Freilassing, Salzburg, Austria pg.110-111

“The Armenian terrorists and their Shiite accomplices regard this slaughter of the French people of today, who had absolutely nothing to do with the tragedy of Lebanon, as their ‘legitimate’ contribution to a belated campaign of vengeance. The Turks of today, however, had even less to do with the events for which they must ‘pay’. They are much less guilty than the French for the present situation in the Middle East. The French did, after all, at one time help the Russians and the British and the American missionaries drive the unfortunate Armenians into the inferno of rebellion and civil war...On Wednesday, Dec. 1st, 1921, Turkish troops advanced to the coast, and the solemn transfer of authority from the French to the Turks took place in Adana. This meant that the unfortunate civil war on the southern front, which had flared up again so cruelly after the French intervention, was finally over. There was still the Turkish western front, however. Since the beginning of their invasion on May 15th, 1919, the Greeks had managed to capture half of western Anatolia and were now preparing for the conquest of Ankara.

“The Peace of Gumru (Alexandropol; Today Leninakan) of Dec. 2nd, 1920:
The severe fighting between the troops of Kazim Karabekir and the Republic of Armenia brought heavy losses. The fighting first ended with the truce of Nov. 6th, which the Armenians had requested after the Turks had taken Kars and advanced to Gumru... After some tough preliminary negotiations and renewed Armenian attacks, the most modernly-equipped Armenian Army was defeated near Shahtahti on Nov. 15th. The Armenians now appealed once again for a truce. The peace negotiations of Gumru began ten days later. On Dec. 2nd, 1920, these negotiations produced a peace treaty between Turkey and the Republic of Armenia which is still valid and binding today. (Shortly thereafter, on March 16th, 1921, the Turks signed the Treaty of Moscow, since Armenia was, as it had almost always been in its history, not a sovereign state itself, but rather under Russian sovereignty. Armenia had already made an agreement on Oct. 11th, 1920 with the Soviet-Russian representative Legrand, saying that ‘Armenia accepts the mediation of Russia in solving its territorial problems.’ In other words, Armenia had signed away its sovereignty in foreign policy matters to Moscow).The Treaty of Alexandropol-Gumru establishes the borders between Turkey and its Armenian neighbor quite clearly, including of course the border north-east of Mount Ararat. Ararat is the highest peak in Turkey. Nevertheless, the Soviet Republic of Armenia still includes Ararat in its coat of arms. This is nearly as absurd as it would be for the British to include Kilimanjaro in their coat of arms, simply because they once held sovereignty there. “
Erich Feigl, A Myth of Terror, Edition Zeitgeschichte Freilassing, Salzburg, Austria pg.112

“Armenia and the one from the Armenian diaspora were outbidding each other in the same way. As mentioned above, their ‘common memorandum’ claimed not only the ‘six provinces’ of Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Harput, Sivas, and Erzurum (in which the Armenians had never in history had a majority), it also laid claim to Trabzon, Karabagh (where virtually no Armenians had ever lived), Sansegur, and large parts of Georgia, as well as Cilicia. At the same time, the reputation of the Armenians as a nation of peace-loving victims who had been defenselessly and helplessly murdered (or rather exterminated) by the bloodthirsty Ottomans was shaken. The reason: The young, autonomous Armenian Republic could not think of anything better to do than start a whole series of wars of conquest...The president of the ‘Armenian National Delegation’ sums up, in a letter to French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon, why the Ottomans, who were fighting on five fronts at the same time and were also confronted with internal Armenian rebellions, had to defend themselves by moving the Armenian population out of the endangered areas:

Monsieur le Ministre,
I have the honor, in the name of the Armenian National Delegation, of submitting to Your Excellency the following declaration, at the same time reminding him:

That the Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente:

In France, through their volunteers, who started joining the Foreign Legion in the first days and covered themselves with glory under the French flag;
In Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the National Delegation at the request of the government of the Republic itself, made up more than half of the French contingent and played a large role in the victory of General Allenby, as he himself and his French chiefs have officially declared;

In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers contributed to the liberation of a portion of the Armenian provinces, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevik withdrawal right up to the signing of an armistice.’

(The letter bears the date on which it was received in the French Foreign Office - Dec. 3rd, 1918).

Other than the above letter, another open letter to the editor of the The Times of London, which was printed on January 30, 1919 and signed by Boghos Nubar from Paris on Jan.27th, is a much more detailed account of the services rendered by the Armenians. Due to shortage of space, only below sections are excerpted from the article titled “THE RIGHTS OF ARMENIA:

* The name of Armenia is not on the list of the nations admitted to the (Paris) Peace Conference.
* But I must emphasize the fact happily known to few, that ever since the beginning of the war the
Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts.
* For Armenians have been belligerents de facto, as they indignantly refused to side with Turkey!
* Our volunteers fought in the French “Legion Estrangere” and covered themselves with glory.
In the Legion d’Orient they numbered over (???) and they made up more than half of the French
contingent in Syria and Palestine, which took part in the decisive victory of General Allenby.
* In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150.000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about
50.000 volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff and others fought for four years for the cause of
the Entente… Thus they helped the British forces in Mezopotamia by hindering the Germano-
Turks from sending their troops elsewhere.
* In virtue of all these considerations the Armenian National Delegation asked that the Armenian
nation should be recognized as belligerent
* I wish strongly to urge that the Armenians, having of their own free will cast in their lot with the champions of right and justice, the victory of the Allies over their common enemies has secured them a right of independence… Signed Boghos Nubar”

“In this manner, Boghos Nubar explained that the Armenians had waged constant war with the Ottoman Empire from Nov. 1st, 1914 right up to the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on Oct. 30th, 1918 and had thus been, in his eyes, ‘de facto belligerents’. “Erich Feigl, A Myth of Terror, Edition Zeitgeschichte Freilassing, Salzburg, Austria pg.102


“27- The Armenian-Turkish war which broke our back began in the fall of 1920. Would it have been possible to evade it? Probably not. The crushed Turkey of 1918 had recovered during the two years. There came forward patriotic, young officers who formed a new army in Asia Minor. They saw the necessity of attacking in the Northeast, and also in the Southwest against the Greeks which they could not do without first crushing their flank on the Armenian front. One cannot say that the Turks really had such a plan, but it is possible that they did and it was also probable that the war with us was inevitable…Despite these hypotheses there remains an irrefutable fact. That we had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks whether we succeeded or not, and we did not do it. We did not do it for the simple reason -no less culpable - that we had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we would win. With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men we did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers. When the skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did not do so and defied them.
I should point out that in the autumn of 1920 we were not a quantitie negligable in the eyes of Turks. The terrible incidents of the past years were forgotten. Our people were well rested and our army was well armed with British arms. We had sufficient ammunition. We were holding a very important fortress called Kars in our hands. Finally there was the Sévres Treaty and it was not simply a piece of paper in those days, it was an important gain against Turks. We were not in a similar position to what we were in May, 1918 in Batoum. We could easily believe we could be heard, because Turks were considered the defeated party…We did not make an attempt…If we had accepted their offer what would they have proposed to us? They would probably have started from where we had left at Batoum and Brest and then they would have given further concessions and receded behind the 1814 border lines. They could possibly have withdrawn further and could have handed over Beyazit and Eleshkirt too…Turks would never have given any further concessions than these in September, 1920 and in return, they were going to demand from the Armenian Government that they give up the rights advanced by the Sévres Treaty...How would the Armenian Government have reacted to this? They would certainly have refused the offer. The government would never have agreed to these conditions; they would have preferred fighting…Not only the Dashnak Bureau-Government but any Armenian Government would have acted in the same way. I am calling attention to this fact. And this quite significantly alleviates the crime committed by our party. The government could never have accepted these conditions; because all the political parties and groups, all our diplomats, all the appointed and voluntary patriots… all would have revolted, rejected the government and accused it of treason. The Sévres Treaty had blinded everyone’s eyes…We now see that if we had agreed on a settlement with the Turks directly (in spite of the Sévres Treaty) we might have gained a lot. But we could not see this at that point…All these are possibilities, but they are also the reflections of our thoughts then…War, on the other hand, was a reality…It is also a reality, an unforgivable reality that we did not do anything to avoid war but did just the opposite; we created excuses for it. What is unforgivable is that we had no idea about the military power of Turkey and neither did we know our own army.”
Hovhannes Kattchaznouni, Bucaret 1923, Dashnagtzoutiun has Nothing to do Anymore pg. 67 - 68
Translated by Lale Akalin, Kaynak Yayinlari, Istanbul,