Wednesday, 19 September

The “Repatriates”: Deception, Sacrifice, and Now Scorn

By Markar Melkonian

Part I – Ignoring the Apocalypse

Readers of Hetq might have noticed a recent series of articles describing the sad fate of some 90-100,000 “repatriates” who relocated to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic from Europe, the Middle East, and the United States between 1946 and 1960.  Hetq has published fifteen articles in this series, from 23 May to 29 June 2017.  The several authors of these articles describe how the “repatriates,” or akhbarner as the locals came to call them, quickly soured on life in the ASSR. 

From the day of their arrival the “repatriates” came face to face with the true nature of the Soviet system: “It was crude, authoritarian, and totally indifferent towards the dignity and fate of the individual,” one of the author tells us.  “The system was full of violence, fear, and barriers.”  (Aghasi Tadevosyan, “Soviet Socialism and the Difficulties of Repatriate Integration,” Hetq, May 25.)  Most of the “repatriates” or their children eventually left Armenia and returned to the diaspora, bitterly disillusioned.

This series of articles comes on the heels of several high-profile projects about the ill-fated “repatriates.”  Other projects include Hazel Antaramian-Hofman’s current multi-media presentation, “Stream of Light,” at the Armenian Center for Contemporary Experimental Art in Yerevan, and “My Genius of Humanity” (2015), a full-length play written by Richard Kalinoski and commissioned by the Fresno State University Theatre. 

I have not seen Kalinoski’s play, but according to the promotional material, it tells the story of the Davidian family, who were among the “few hundred Armenian Americans” who were “seduced by the Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union to resettle in their homeland, Armenia, in 1947 and 1949.”  Instead of the promised paradise, the family arrives in “a place of grinding poverty dominated by a stubborn communist bureaucracy and infused with an insidious paranoia.”  There, “the food is terrible, the lines for bread are long, and the lack of privacy is piercing and humiliating.”  And so on.   

We have heard the parable many times:  naive diasporan Armenians, raised in an atmosphere of prosperity and freedom in the West (or in Western-influenced countries of the Middle East) make their way to an advertised socialist utopia, only to encounter bitter disappointment.  Thus disabused of their idealism, they try desperately to extricate themselves from the trap.  After much travail, most of them return to the West, with a new appreciation for Democracy and the Free Market.  

The Inconsequential Slaughter of Tens of Millions 

So far, the series in Hetq on the “repatriates” consists of a total of approximately 21,000 words.  In all of these words, there is almost no mention of the fact that, at the height of the immigration to Armenia, the country was trying desperately to claw its way out from under the ruins of World War II.  Let’s take a slightly closer look at the condition of Armenia in the late 1940’s. 

Hitler’s massive invasion of the Soviet Union, launched in June 1941 (just five or six years before the beginning of the largest wave of “repatriation”), was the largest military operation in history.  The invasion took place along a 2900-kilometer front, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.  The invading force comprised 134 divisions of Hitler’s military machine, the Wehrmacht, at full fighting strength, plus more than 73 additional divisions deployed behind the front, plus 650,000 troops from German allies.  (By comparison, the USA and the UK together faced 2 German divisions during their heaviest fighting in Sicily.)  The Wehrmacht deployed some 600,000 motorized vehicles and more than 4000 aircraft in the first stage of the attack.  In the course of four years Hitler’s forces decimated 1700 Soviet towns and cities, 70,000 smaller towns and villages, 31,800 factories, 1900 collective farms, 84,000 schools, 43,000 libraries and 65,000 kilometers of railway.  The invaders razed agriculture and industry, maimed tens of millions, and killed more than 26 million Soviet citizens (Max Hastings, Inferno, Vintage, 2012; William Moskoff, The Bread of Affliction, Cambridge UP, 2002).

Armenian casualties alone - more than a quarter million - equaled the total American casualty count from the European and Pacific theatres put together.  (Let us recall that the USA finally joined the war--despite widespread pro-Nazi sympathy among American politicians and corporate leaders--more than five months after Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union.)  Almost every family in the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic had a member who fought or died in the war, and even those who did not fight lived under conditions of deprivation, including dire food shortages, and the threat of invasion by a vicious enemy at the gates.  

Hitler’s forces laid siege to the city of Stalingrad, on the way to the oil fields of Baku.  Historians believe that it is likely that if the Wehrmacht had succeeded in taking Stalingrad and capturing those oil fields, the Republic of Turkey would have joined the Axis Powers.  If that had happened, Turkey might well have resumed its territorial offensive against Armenia, and for the second time in 27 years, the survival of the Armenian nation would have been up in the air.   

The war ended less than two years before the first big wave of immigration to Soviet Armenia.  Yet the authors of Hetq’s series on post-war emigration have managed to tiptoe around this overwhelming reality.  Their most sustained reference to WWII is a parenthetical note from the 13 June installment:  according to the author, some of the new arrivals rationalized the difficulties they faced in Armenia, because “just recently the country had been at war.” 

We also read a passing reference, in the 27 May installment, to “soldiers taken prisoner in the war or who had served in the Armenian Legion.”  The author provides no follow-up explanation about the war or the Armenian Legion.  The term “the war” appears in the May 30 installment; the phrase “after World War II” appears in the 3 June installment, and the two words “war loses” appear in the 16 June installment.  And that is it:  out of the fifteen installments in this series, composed of 21,000 words, fewer than 30 scattered words refer to the devastation that had just taken place in the USSR and Soviet Armenia.   

One might have thought that understanding the consequences of the war would help us to make sense of the “repatriates’” experiences.  If one were to take the devastation into account, for example, the reader might gain an insight into why the local population, having just emerged from four years of hell, might have resented the well-dressed and relatively wealthy late-arrivals from the diaspora. 

Surely the brutality of the war had something to do with the “violence, fear, and barriers” that the new arrivals confronted a few years later.  The new arrivals encountered an entire population suffering from what psychologists today would call Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Under these circumstances, is it really so surprising that newcomers would perceive the locals as crude, authoritarian, and indifferent towards the dignity of the individual?  Is it really so surprising that a country that had just lost 26 million citizens to a foreign invader would be “infused with an insidious paranoia?” 

(Consider, by way of comparison, America’s “insidious paranoia” after the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack on the American Naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii:  110,000 ethnic Japanese, mostly U.S. citizens, were sent to interment camps.  Or consider America’s “insidious paranoia” after the Al Qaeda bombings of September 11, 2001:  in response, America enacted the Patriot Act, mobilized the Department of Homeland Security, ramped up the practice of torture and the extrajudicial killings of American citizens, monitored hundreds of millions of its citizens personal communications daily, and extended its archipelago of secret prisons across the globe—all in response to an attack that caused fewer than 3000 deaths.)

One can already hear the commentators objecting:  to point out that 26 million Soviet citizens had been killed by a foreign invader six or eight years before the “repatriates” arrived is just to make excuses for communist totalitarianism!  

For the record:  yes, Joseph Stalin was a tyrant and a mass murder.  (Let us keep in mind that the first of his millions of victims were communists:  among other things, Stalin killed Lenin’s closest comrades, decimated Lenin’s party, and destroyed the October Revolution.) 

But let us also remember that the USA, depicted in the series as the antithesis of Soviet “totalitarianism,” has had more than its share of tyrants and murderers, from before Andrew Jackson to the present day.  The Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen, for example, caused the deaths of more unarmed civilians that Stalin did—and in less time.  John Foster and Allen Dulles, as U.S. Secretary of State (1953-1959) and head of the CIA (1953-1961) respectively, presided over violent coups and mass killings, from Iran to Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, and beyond, and set the stage for many millions of deaths in subsequent years. 

But Americans do not let their history of genocides, slavery, and wars of aggression get in the way of their patriotic celebrations. When it comes to the Soviet Union, by contrast, we are supposed to take literally the sardonic comment of Fidel Castro Ruz, the late President of the Republic of Cuba:  the Soviet Union, he said, is the only country in history that had no enemies, only victims.   

Enemies of Idealism

This series on the “repatriates,” we are informed, was “financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).”  The NED describes itself as a “private, non-profit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.”  As it turns out, this “private foundation” is in fact funded by an annual allocation by the U.S. Congress, through the U.S. Information Agency.  (Google it.)  Here we have yet another example of western-funded “nongovernmental” organizations that are, as a matter of fact, blunt projections of foreign state power.  

The NED is not an organization devoted to scholarship.  In the course of its thirty-four years of existence, the Endowment has embraced all manner of rightwing tyrants, including perpetrators of dirty wars in Latin America, supporters of apartheid in South Africa, and murderous regimes in Central America.  Throughout the entire series, the irony is there for all to see:  our NED-financed authors commit the very same sin that they denounce when it comes to “totalitarian” Soviet officialdom:  these authors themselves grotesquely misrepresent reality, spreading half-truths and officially sanctioned “lies and falsifications” (Hetq 23 May), in the course of serving an agency of a brutal state. 

When we are denied an accurate and balanced understanding of the historical context of the post-war wave of immigration to Armenia, we are left with little more than Cold War clichés about the evils of Bolshevism and the foolishness of pursuing any goal loftier than personal enrichment and the consumption of commodities.  The terribly sad story of the “repatriates,” torn out of its historical setting, becomes yet another skewed narrative that saps the idealism of our young compatriots and denigrates the honorable sacrifices of their grandparents and great grandparents, both “repatriates” and native-born Soviet citizens.   

*         *         *

To be continued - The series on “repatriates” published in Hetq stressed the cultural differences that separated them from the local population.  I will take up this topic in Part Two of this presentation.  I will also say a few well-chosen words about the experiences of more recent “repatriates” who have tried to make their lives in the post-Soviet Republic of Armenia, and about emigration from Armenia since its return to capitalist rule. 

Top photo: Between 1946 and 1947, 100,000 Armenians left their homes in Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East to settle in Soviet Armenia. (Photo taken at an Alexandria port in 1947, courtesy of AGBU Alexandria)

(The article is an opinion piece, and the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Hetq, its editors, or its publishers.) 

Markar Melkonian is a teacher and an author.  His books include Richard Rorty’s Politics:  Liberalism at the End of the American Century (1999), Marxism: A Post-Cold War Primer (Westview Press, 1996), and My Brother’s Road (2005).

Home page


Comments (6)
1. Dave21:53 - 17 July, 2017
The situation of the repatriates would have been the same no matter when it happened - such as during the 1930s for example. Remember the Purges: Death and Destruction. The problem was always Stalinism and the Communist system and its sick mentality of persecution, prison camps, and death. Many of the repatriates were persecuted by the government and sent to prison. Post-war deprivations cannot explain or justify any of that. The repatriates went to Armenia to help not to harm. Stop making excuses for the Stalinists. Notice that even today the government of Armenia, power hungry, corrupt, and inept, keeps the Diaspora, which really just wants to help, at arms length. The Diaspora could be doing infinitely more if not for the pig-headed attitude of the Armenian government which simply does not care. And to think that Diasporans actually welcomed Serge when he came over the US. Thus, some of the same mentality of the late 1940s is seen even today. Don't blame the repatriates and don't blame the present-day Diaspora. Power corrupts, as they say.
2. Hagop00:06 - 20 July, 2017
The Soviet Union started out as a project to destroy one's identity, religion, culture, and soul for the benefit of the International Banking Cartel to keep reaping the rewards from their initial "investment" long-term. All while cynically thrusting the population into a life of wanton poverty. Of course they ultimately found the sweet spot of enough brain washing and state welfare to keep the people in their place. Which is why pretty much only the people who knew what life was like outside the Soviet Union were the first to escape after its collapse. Why would I take this position? Simple, because the nation most devastated from the war, West Germany, came out as an economic power to be reckoned with inside of a decade, while Soviet East Germany shared the same destitution and poverty of the rest of the Soviet nations. And post WWII USA arguably witnessed America's most prosperous time in its history.
3. Hagop01:57 - 20 July, 2017
In part 1 of my post there is a correction to "after its collapse" - it should be "after the borders opened up", which predates the Soviet collapse by a couple decades or so. On to part 2. So why was the iron-fisted Soviet Union still in existence more than two decades AFTER the laws changed both in the USA and Soviet Union to allow "those who are oppressed to seek asylum and immigration"? Answer: the needs of the International Jewish Community for Israel. All other factors, such as the needs of other people, human rights issues, etc are null and void. They are besides the point. These laws were passed for them not anyone or anything else. How would I come to this conclusion? Well this is not rocket science. 1. The IJC started the "Russian" revolution to bring in Bolshevism/Marxism/Communism and ultimately create a "Jewish State". 2. Stalin was working closely with them at first, and thus everything was going rosy... until the Bolshevik purges. 3. After WWII "Israel" was finally invented after many decades of planning and needed large numbers from the IJC to displace the Palestinians. 4. The Soviet Union was already becoming increasingly 'Ethnically Russian' dominated and ruled. 5. A Jewish US politician came up with the immigration law to allow immigrants from non-European countries. 6. The Soviet Jews thus now had a legal means to leave, and they left mostly for either Israel or USA, according to plan. 7. The fed-up diaspora repatriate Armenians took advantage of this law and also left. Why did the Jews leave? 1. To strengthen their newly formed country and 2. To make more money in the USA and other prosperous nations also for the benefit of their new country. Why did Armenians leave? My opinion, for comfort mostly. And THAT'S why they generally win, and we generally lose.
4. Hagop23:53 - 20 July, 2017
In part 3, I'm going to state my frustrations with Russia. First let me state, I am not anti-Russia, and in fact I wish I could be pro, but the history of our nation and the way Russia has treated Armenia stops me from being so. Thus, my opinion of Armenia-Russia relations is "eh, whatever". I have high hopes for a positive Armenia-Russia alliance for the future though, but I reject that "Russia was and is Armenia's friend". No it wasn't, and for the present and future: it remains to be seen, and we can make such a conclusion when the evidence presents itself. I have said this over and over, if Russia and Armenia had a "friendship" then there would be no such thing as "Azerbaijan". At the very least, Azerbaijan would be a non-factor as far as Armenia's security, and Artsakh and Nakhichevan would have already been part of Armenia long ago. Russia has interests, not friends. And for the present, Armenia is part of Russia's national interests, and Armenians unfortunately do not understand, so is Azerbaijan. Perhaps Russia considers Azerbaijan less reliable than Armenia, but then so what? How has that helped Armenia? How long did it take Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as nations and annex Crimea? About 48 hours each or so? And how long has the Artsakh conflict been dangling over Armenia's head? To be precise, 23 years and counting. Yes I know, without Russia's security guarantees, Armenia would be swallowed whole, but then again, it is at least in large part thanks to Russia, that those threats are alive against Armenia. Yes I know, the Bolshevik revolutionaries were not ethnic Russians and under their control when Armenia was cut up and handed over to "Azerbaijan". So what about post-Stalinist Russia when ethnic Russians WERE in control, why didn't they fix the past mistakes against Armenia then? Had the Soviet leadership done the right thing and simply transferred Artsakh to Armenia from the 60's on, there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could have done anything about it, not Turkey, and not NATO. Not that NATO is so great, NATO headed by the USA is even less reliable than Russia of course because NATO loves Turkey, simply as a result of being against Russia. Thus my conclusion is, we Armenians shouldn't be relying on any powers to define our future, and we must play it smart to milk the system to maximum effect. Shake hands with Russia, and wave to NATO, and don't turn your back on either one, that's about it. Russia uses Azerbaijan to keep Armenia humble. Armenia needs to use the USA to keep Russia humble in turn.
5. Hagop01:37 - 1 August, 2017
Now continuing to part 4 of this discussion, I will state that Germany, Germans and their history are to this day used as scapegoats to demonstrate what "evil" is. After purging my early brainwashing, I came to realize that most of WWII history is just a sack of sh*t. For many decades lies of the most heinous kind have been disseminated against casual students of history. The underlying logic of western and Soviet history of WWII is thus: "since history is written by the victors, it means Germans were evil". In order to get around this statement and make it more palatable, including for today's Germans themselves, the word "Nazi" is used to substitute "German". Thus, Germans are forbidden from being patriots and being proud of their history. And we can see this to this day as the country is run by a bunch of liberal loons hellbent on destroying the country's demographics. Now were the "Nazis" evil? Maybe, maybe not. But if I as a person interested in history were to take the second idea of "maybe not", I would have committed a serious violation by western (and now Russian, previously Soviet) historical standards. In fact I might be labeled a "Nazi sympathizer", but such charges are always used merely to "silence" someone who is starting to uncover facts which do not fit conveniently into the established mold. So this is the reason why most of WWII history is a big lie, and no one cares to investigate facts. because it is more hassle than it is worth, not to mention that it can end a historian's career. As for my opinion about "Nazis", they are not my cup of tea, but they weren't any different than the other world powers who wanted to be dominant and control world resources in my opinion. Perhaps WWII era Germans were militaristic, resourceful, nationalistic, dogmatic and fierce. But taking their histories into context, Nazi Germany was no more "evil" than was the Soviet Union, and for that matter the British Empire. The difference? They lost the war. That's about it, from a realist's point of view.
6. Hagop22:54 - 3 August, 2017
Part 5, to compliment part 4. At the hands of the international Judeo-Masonic mass murdering criminals, what the Russians went through in the so-called "Russian Revolution" was most definitely a 'genocide'. Except, the Russian leadership and academia to this day have been too chicken to admit who the perpetrators really were. It's understandable in a way, since the revelation might be a futile exercise since there is no 'nation' to charge with crimes against humanity, other than Israel, which did not exist in 1917. (Israeli war crimes against humanity are of course present today against the Palestinians, but that does not apply to Russia). Some Russian writers though like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn did correctly identify the perpetrators (in so many words). Notably his passage:... "You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian Revolution". It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of Human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.".... One caveat: I do not agree that the Russian Genocide was the worst in Human history, taking into account other factors. In terms of number of victims and Human suffering, perhaps it was. But the Armenian Genocide and Armenian Holocaust was the worst, if we take into account cultural and historic destruction. But then again, if we admit to real history, we see that the masterminds of the Russian and Armenian Genocides were by the same people in question...
Leave a comment
Thank you for your comment. Your comment must be confirmed by the administration.

Latest news

All news