Christian Scholar Sam Weems, in his
"Armenia -- Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State,"
provided powerful research regarding Congressional discussion as to whether to
take on the Armenians' mandate. As you may know, at the end of W.W.I, England
and France were spent, and looked to the USA to do their dirty work. They were
falling all over themselves to allow a minority of Armenians to rule over a
majority of Muslims, but the strong arm of a superpower was needed to enforce
this imperialist plan. Preacher's son President Woodrow ("There ain't
gonna be no Turkey") Wilson hoped to make this scheme into a reality,
but American democracy was a hurdle to overcome.
In the following testimony, one wonders
why there aren't smart, fair evaluators among the prejudiced and/or
Armenian-driven politicians the world over who vote on meaningless
"Armenian Genocide" resolutions. Truly, Senator Reed is an
exception. He took the trouble to consider more than one side of the story,
and clearly saw General Harbord's pro-Armenian, pro-"Christian"
What's more, Senator Reed came
upon a brilliant and original reason as to why the "genocide"
couldn't have happened. See the section, What of the Armenians?, where the senator
compares the Armenians with Americans, were the latter to find themselves at
the hands of an exterminating enemy.
Let's begin with
a little background:
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
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
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.
5. 66th Congress 2nd
session Doc. No. 281
7. Ibid. p 14
8. Ibid. p 15
U.S. Senate Says 'No' to
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 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
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
The senator went on to
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)
JAMES A. REED OF MISSOURI
"The important thing
is that he fights. Were there greater gladiators in the Senate in the Golden
Age? I presume to doubt it," editorialized "usually cynical
journalist" H. L. Mencken (in American Mercury, April, 1929), of Senator
James A. Reed. "The reward of such a man is bound to be a sort of ill
fame. Frauds hate him, and dullards find him disquieting. In the midst of a
democracy based upon false pretenses, his instinct for the harsh and horrible
fact is essentially anti-social."
James Alexander Reed, 1861–1944, was a senator from 1911-1929. He adamantly
opposed national prohibition and U.S. participation in the League of Nations,
and was a 1928 contender for the Democratic presidential nomination
Senator Reed sounds like the rare breed who gives politicians a good name.
More of his exploits may be read at pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/ownman.htm/.
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 Mohammedanism 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
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
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
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)
|What of the Armenians?
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
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
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
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
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 heartbeat of truth
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
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 without
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 deported 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-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
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)
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 Armenians' 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
"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
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
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 all this unlimited giving
by Americans to Armenians end? There is no end in sight based on the logic of the U.S.
14. Congressional Record, 1920 p. 7889.
15. Ibid. p. 7896.
16. Ibid. p. 7896.
17. Ibid. p. 7897.
18. Ibid. p. 7897.
19. Ibid. p. 7897.
20. Ibid. p. 7898.
21. Ibid. p. 7898.
22. Ibid. p. 7899.
23. Exhibit # 2
24. Congressional Record, 1920 p. 7891.
25. Ibid. p. 7891.
26. Ibid. p. 7891.
A Few Observations
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:
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
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.
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.
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
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.