U.S. Senate Says 'No' to Armenians

(Pgs. 310-321)

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:

Armenophile James Gerard

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 part 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 intend­ment 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 withdrew 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 oil fields of Batum 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)

Acts of robbery

 

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.

 

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-Kala, 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 cruelty, 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)

 

A Few Observations

 

While General Harbord deserves credit for acknowledging some crimes of the Armenians, it is most unimpressive that he decided to have downplay the crimes of the Armenians. He saw the truth when he met Ataturk ("Harbord was bid farewell in the same sincere and proud manner that he was greeted by the people who had nothing to hide. While shaking General Karabekir's hand he loudly said; 'I saw the truth on location'.") The factors at play here must have been a combination of the Armenians who overwhelmingly had his ear, his deep Christianity, and the fact that his boss, President Wilson, had an agenda. It wasn't that the Armenians' "retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity." Frequently, the Armenians conceived of and committed the beastliest acts, and they didn't need further imagination to accuse the Turks of performing the same, when they whispered into the ear of those such as Harbord. The inhuman acts the Turks have been accused of almost always boil down to hearsay. As usual, the Armenians were behind the first shot, and any cruelties of the Turks were the ones that were retaliatory... the general had the order — and the degree of inhumanity — wrong.

As far as Senator Reed's thought-provoking argument regarding why there could not have been a genocide, I'd like to cite Leon Sumerlian's "I Ask You, Ladies and Gentleman," to examine further. As a nine-year-old boy, Sumerlian was an "eyewitness" to a "deportation," where he reports terrible acts that had been committed against the Armenians. After the Armenians of Trebizond get the order to move out in a week's time, the village leaders discuss their options. Sumerlian's father, a conservative who was not into the fanatical Dashnak mentality, convincingly states there wouldn't be much to be done:

"What we should do is to escape to the mountains, as many of us as possible, and fight our way to the Russian lines." This proposal thrilled me. Oh, boy, how I would fight! "Don’t talk nonsense. It will be sheer suicide. Fight with what? Can we muster up fifteen rifles?"

This is a plausible conversation. We are talking about civilians against the armed might of an army.

However, the fact is, many Ottoman-Armenian men did do exactly as what was suggested, and many who had been drafted into the army also deserted to the enemy, with their weapons. Every town had caches of arms in preparation for the glorious revolt that the author of the above book was not going to touch upon (assuming he learned of the real history years afterwards; his intention was to focus on "extermination" efforts), and there was access to a lot more than "fifteen rifles." There were thousands of Armenian fighters within Ottoman lines, acting as a fifth column, likely comprising the bulk of the 50,000 "volunteers" Boghos Nubar reported. This was a formidable force, and a significant military threat — particularly in a life or death struggle where every Ottoman was desperately needed at multiple fronts.

Surmelian reports that the villagers first believed they would be peacefully resettled, but as the day of the march draws near (in his chapter entitled the "Highway of Death"), they became savvy — unlike most Jews of the Holocaust — that they would all be murdered.

Consider: while the civilian men of the village might not have proven effective (but they were still men, men who came to believe their wives and children would be killed off... and some had contact with the revolutionary committees), where were these thousands of fighters? Thousands of fighters who would have made mincemeat of the handful of (sometimes newly recruited, and poor-quality) gendarmes guarding the caravans?

If you were a man, had access to weaponry via carefully prepared secret storehouses, and came to believe your women and children were to be exterminated, would you have taken it lying down?

Those who don't want to go down the territory that Armenian men were not real men then must arrive at only one other possibility: The Armenians who were transported were not planned to be systematically murdered. History has borne this out; the majority of Armenians went on to survive, and those who died mostly did so under the causes of famine and disease... the same factors that targeted all Ottomans, including the nearly 3 million Turks and Muslims.