And backstabbing rebellious, traitorous acts start!

Anybody who opposes the Dashnak (i.e. Nazi) Armenian's version of Armenian Revolt which ended up in their deportation, and now being represented as a full blown genocide staged by Turks on them, for demonizing, discriminating against and prejudicing Turks in international environment, is either a Turk, a Turkish agent, a Georgian, a self-hating (?) Jew or a denialist, who prevent them from summarily executing Turks.

Of course when it comes to Dashnak Armenian's claims, which are being fanned by our Western friends and allies (sic), so they can act discriminatorily against Turks, rights to defend yourself, fair trial, etc. disappears into thin air.

Anyway the strangest thing is there are some Turks, Turkish agents, Georgians, self hating (sic) Jews and denialists who lived in 1870s, and dared to deny Dashnak Armenian's genocide claims or to talk in contrary to them.

And Consul Mr. Layard (who in many previous correspondence is very anti-Turk person) is one of these Turks, Turkish agents, Georgians, self-hating (sic) Jews and denialists who dared to deny the myth of innocent Armenians were being systematically slaughtered by Turks, out of blue without any reason.

Despite, as the following correspondence clearly indicates, Armenians

“are, in their own country, a quiet, industrious, and frugal people, chiefly engaged in agriculture, and living in friendly relations with the Mahommedan Turkish population which, like themselves, suffers from the lawless violence of the Kurds. In Constantinople, and in the principal towns of Turkey, they become prosperous bankers and merchants. Some of them fill confidential posts at the Porte, and are entrusted with important political affairs. Others are the agents of wealthy Turkish families, and of high officials, and thus exercise very considerable influence.”

And despite Dashnak (i.e. Nazi) Armenians very well know the fact that they were highly revered by Ottoman State and in friendly relations with Turks, but just like Turks, were victims of violence of Kurds, they insist on placing blame on Turks, who were nothing but plebs and cannon fodders seldomly holding top executive positions within the Ottoman system, always neglected in terms of education, economy, administration, but only being remembered when Ottomans would go to a war.

The irony here is although (as clearly indicated by thousands of British Consular Documents) IT WAS KURDS WHO WERE RAPING ARMENIAN GIRLS AND BOYS (YES YOU READ IT CORRECTLY) AND CARRYING AWAY THEM FOR THEIR BASE PURPOSES, PLUNDERING AND ROBBING ARMENIAN VILLAGES, STAGING EVERY KIND OF LAWLESSNESS, Armenian Republic is one of our friendly (sic) neighbors, along with other friends and allies (sic), who harbors Kurdish Separatist Terrorists (namely PKK), which just like their ancestors did to Armenians about a hundred years ago, have been staging a terror campaign against Turks (killing about 30.000 civilians in cold blood) and attempting to create a race war (just like Dashnak Armenian terrorists did about a hundred years ago).

So in a nutshell, if the relations between Turks and Armenians were so pleasant, what went wrong and Ottomans decided to deport Armenians?

What went wrong is the greed of non-Turkish Armenian revolutionaries who, despite they are very small minority in everywhere they live, were desperately need a country of their own and started a dirty revolution involving staging attacks on civilian population (whose fathers and sons went to war) on behalf of Armenians, to precipitate reprisals by the Turks, so they can ensure intervention by Western powers.

This greed is supported by Western powers to their advantage, so they can attain their imperialist purposes.

Many Armenian notables were either accomplice in such rebellious acts, or threatened by Armenian revolutionaries (namely Dashnaks and Hunchaks) to comply with their demands.

In the following correspondence, Patriarch Narsis (Narses) of Istanbul, expresses his concerns about the irritation amongst the Armenians against himself, since he assumed a pro-Ottoman attitude, and turned down pro-Russian tendencies which were being pushed on by Dashnak and Hunchak Armenians who are not Turkish subjects but Russian subjects.

He, just like thousands of other documents, clearly states the major discontent and displeasure amongst Armenians were not due to Turks but Kurds.

However, apparently he gives in to exaggerated demands of Armenian terrorists, and despite they represent only seven percent of the population of Anatolia, he demanded almost half of Anatolia as Armenia and Mr Layard answers him in the provinces His Beautitude Narses mentioned, he

“had reason to believe, a very large majority of the population consisted of Mussulmans“.

Despite Dashnak Armenians, in an attempt to demonize, discriminate against and prejudice Turks, were pretending to be innocent people and out of blue Turks (which historically are actually Ottomans) were slaughtered them, His Beautitude Narses clearly threatens England, by saying if the Congress

“did not do so, and did not listen to the just demands of the Armenians, the country to which he had referred would rise, within a short time, against Turkish rule, and would annex itself to Russia.”

Of course I'm a Turk and anybody I say is worthless because I'm neither human, nor my existence means any value, but in many judicial systems such behavior is considered and prosecuted as TRIASON.

That's why His Beautitude Patriarch, Narses, clearly requests Mr. Layard
"to consider "their" conversation confidential, as he was afraid that he would compromise himself with the Turkish Government if what had passed between us came to be known."

However, Mr. Layard, who was a Turkish agent, a Georgian, a self hating (sic) Jew, a denialist, in disguise of a British Consul, clearly informs Earl of Derby that by mentioning about dangers of rising hopes of the Armenians and was aware of the revolutionary intrigues and warned about the serious consequences of such revolution, by saying

“I recount my conversation with the Patriarch to your Lordship, as it tends to confirm what I have ventured to submit in other despatches with respect to the danger of exciting the hopes and desires of other populations of the Turkish Empire by according to those of European Turkey autonomous institutions. An encouragement is thus given to intrigues and insurrections in all parts of the Sultan’s dominions, and to attempts to throw off his authority and that of his Government which must inevitably lead, sooner or later, to very serious results. If I am not misinformed such intrigues are now carried on very actively and extensively for this object. The movement amongst the Armenians is probably caused by these.”

Second document also by denialist in disguise, Mr. Layard, is a clear manifestation of how wealthy and powerful Armenians were intriguing such revolutionary ideas without heeding the wellbeing of poor and weaker regular Armenians in the game of obtaining a country of their own, despite being minority therein, setting up the first form of Apartheid. Despite he is one of the many influential Armenians benefiting from fruits of government, he was backstabbing the country where he was a citizen of.

The third one, just like previous two, is proof how Armenian notables (instigated by Russia) were intriguing for a revolution which shall be bloody for civilian population. I say bloody since the intrigue was involving first staging gruesome attacks on Turkish civilians (mostly families whose men were off to war), thereby triggering retaliations and ensuring both ethnic cleansing the region of the non-Armenian elements and assuring intervention by Western powers.

Anyway read yourself and let the truth be told.

No More Discrimination

No. 64

Mr. Layard to the Earl of Derby.

No. 365. Confidential.	CONSTANTINOPLE, March 18, 1878.
My Lord,	(Received March 29.)

BY my despatch No. 364 of to-day I have transmitted a letter addressed to your Lordship by Archbishop Narsis, the Armenian patriarch of Constantinople. When his Eminence called upon me to request that I would forward this letter he took occasion to enter very fully into the position and grievances of the Armenian nation or community. Your Lordship will remember that last year his Eminence was anxious to persuade me that his people were not dissatisfied with the Turkish rule, and that they greatly preferred remaining under it to being transferred to that of Russia. He even declared their readiness to enroll themselves in the Turkish army, or to be formed into a local force for the defence of the Turkish territory. His Eminence admitted to me when I saw him yesterday that such had been the case. But he said that since the Russian successes, and especially since it had become known that Russia had stipulated in one of the Articles of the Preliminaries of Peace for administrative reforms for Armenia, the state of affairs had completely changed. The Armenians were now greatly irritated against him for having put Russia against them by giving his support to the Turkish Government, and “threatened to stone him.” The fact that a large number of their fellow countrymen had been transferred to Christian rule by the annexation of a part of Armenia to Russia, and that autonomous Government was about to be conceded to the Christian population of European Turkey, naturally led them to demand the same privileges. Their hatred of Mahommedan rule had been increased by the excesses committed by the Kurds upon the Armenian inhabitants of the Province of Van and of the district of Bayazid, for which he had in vain appealed to the Porte for redress. The Armenians were now determined to assert their rights, and to claim to be placed upon the same footing as their fellow-Christians elsewhere. If they could not obtain what they asked from the justice and through the intervention of Europe, they would appeal to Russia, and would not cease to agitate until they were annexed to her. Already, his Eminence said, a large portion of the Christian population of Armenia was preparing to emigrate to the territories ceded to Russia. He trusted, therefore, that the demands of the Armenians for an autonomous Christian Government would be taken into favourable consideration at the Congress, and that Europe would insist upon the formation of a self governing Armenian province.

His Excellency showed me the copy of a letter which he had addressed to Prince Bismarck, soliciting his Highness’s protection and good offices for the Armenians. He had sent it through Prince Reuss, who, as I have had occasion to inform your Lordship, has been in frequent communication of late with the heads of the Armenian community, with the object, I am assured, of detaching them from their allegiance to the Sultan, and of promoting the policy of Russia.

I asked the Patriarch what he understood by “Armenia,” and what part of Turkey in Asia he considered ought to be included in the autonomous province that he had in view. His Eminence replied that Armenia should contain the Pashalics of Van and Sivas, the greater part of that of Diarbekir, and the ancient kingdom of Cilicia (or the province on the northern boundary of Syria, and extending to the west from the Taurus range to the sea). I pointed out to his Eminence that what he asked was a very large slice indeed out of the territories remaining to the Sultan in Asia Minor, and that in the provinces he had mentioned, I had reason to believe, a very large majority of the population consisted of Mussulmans. He did not deny that such was the case; but he maintained that the Turks themselves were greatly dissatisfied with the rule of the Porte, and would willingly accept a Christian Government which would afford them protection for their lives and property.

To a remark that I made to the Patriarch that I did not think it probable that the Congress would entertain so vast a project as that which he had placed before me, his Eminence replied that if it did not do so, and did not listen to the just demands of the Armenians, the country to which he had referred would rise, within a short time, against Turkish rule, and would annex itself to Russia. He further observed that amongst the Generals and high functionaries employed by Russia in Georgia and Armenia were many Armenians, some of whom had greatly distinguished themselves during the war; that they were in close relations with their brethren in Turkey, and that whatever his own personal views might be— and he was a simple priest, and had no mundane ambition—his people were determined no longer to submit to Mahommedan rule, and he could not oppose himself to their wishes.

I recount my conversation with the Patriarch to your Lordship, as it tends to confirm what I have ventured to submit in other despatches with respect to the danger of exciting the hopes and desires of other populations of the Turkish Empire by according to those of European Turkey autonomous institutions. An encouragement is thus given to intrigues and insurrections in all parts of the Sultan’s dominions, and to attempts to throw off his authority and that of his Government which must inevitably lead, sooner or later, to very serious results. If I am not misinformed such intrigues are now carried on very actively and extensively for this object. The movement amongst the Armenians is probably caused by these. It is not improbable that we shall, ere long, hear of similar movements amongst the Mussulman as well as Christian populations of other parts of Asiatic Turkey, including Syria. They may take the form in Africa of a demand for complete independence of the Porte. The falling to pieces and dismemberment of the Turkish Empire may be in the eyes of some a desirable event, but England ought at least to be prepared for the consequences. That an autonomous State, such as the “Armenia” of the Patriarch, could long preserve even its semi-independence, no one acquainted with the populations which inhabit the provinces it is proposed by sanguine Armenians to include within its boundaries, could for one moment believe. Autonomy must end in annexation to Russia, an event which the Patriarch evidently seemed to contemplate. How far would it suit the interests of England that Russia should extend her dominion over so large an additional portion of Asia Minor and up to the very borders of Syria? That she will ultimately do so appears to me one of the results of her annexation of Eastern Armenia as far south as Bayazid.

The Patriarch requested me to consider our conversation confidential, as he was afraid that he would compromise himself with the Turkish Government if what had passed between us came to be known.

I have, &c.

(Signed) A. H. LAYARD.

F. O. 424/68, pp. 346-348, .No 639

No. 65

Mr. Layard to the Earl of Derby.

No. 383. Confidential.	CONSTANTINOPLE, March 20, 1878.
My Lord,	(Received March 29.)

AN Armenian, who fills a high post at the Porte, called upon me yesterday, and told me very confidentially that he, and some of his countrymen who were leading members of the Armenian community, were engaged in framing a constitution, or “réglement organique,” for the new Armenian “autonomous province,” which they intended to submit to the Congress, and which they expected England would support. He said that the Armenians were determined, now that self-government was about to be given to the Christian communities in Europe, to demand the same privilege for themselves in Asia. He saw no difficulty in constructing an Armenian State; but he admitted that there might be some objection to including Cilicia within it, although that province undoubtedly once belonged to the Kingdom of Armenia. He added that if the Congress refused to listen to the just demands of the Armenians, they were resolved to agitate until they could obtain what they required, and if they could not succeed without foreign aid, they would place themselves completely in the hands of Russia, and even prefer annexation to her to remaining under Turkish rule. He ended by asking me whether I would transmit the “Reglement,” which he and his friends were preparing, to Her Majesty’s Government, and recommend it to them for presentation to the Congress.

I did not give much encouragement to my visitor’s scheme for the restoration of the ancient Kingdom of Tigranes, nor did I commit myself to a promise to submit to your Lordship’s favourable consideration a constitution for it.

I have, &c.

(Signed) A. H. LAYARD.

F. O. 424/68, pp 354, JIb. 644

No. 66

Mr. Layard to the Earl of Derby.

No. 401 Confidential.

My Lord,

CONSTANTINOPLE, March 25, 1878. (Received April 5.)

I HAVE the honour to inclose, herewith, copy of a memorandum, given to me by a trustworthy person, relating to the views of some of the leading Armenians of Constantinople, as to a future constitution of the Province of Armenia, which they hope to obtain by the help of England. It agrees in the main with the statement made to me by the Armenian Patriarch, as reported to your Lordship in my despatch No. 364 of the 18th March, with the exception that it does not appear to contemplate the annexation of Silicia to the proposed “autonomous” State. It admits that Monseigneur Narses, the present Gregorian Armenian Patriarch, has been in communication with the Russian head-quarters at San Stefano, and that an agent has been sent by some of the Armenians here to St. Petersburgh. I understand that Khorem Nar Bey, the ex-Patriarch, and another dignitary of the Church, have been entrusted with this mission. It is also stated in the memorandum that it is the intention of the persons who are getting up the movement in favour of Armenian “autonomy,” to send a deputation to the members of the coming Congress to advocate their cause.

The inclosed document deserves your Lordship’s attention, as it shows the nature arid object of the agitation which has commenced for the purpose of extending to the Turkish dominions in Asia “autonomous” institutions similar to those which are about to be introduced into Turkey in Europe. It may be the commencement of a movement which may lead to serious results, affecting our interests in the East. It is stated in the memorandum that after the Crimean War England thought of securing to Armenia a”certain autonomy;” I have no recollection of such having been the case. Had it been so, considering the interest I have always felt in Armenia, and the Armenians, I should probably have been aware of it. In those days the doctrine of autonomy was not in vogue. That England desired to procure good government, and proper protection, for the Armenians, as for all other communities, Christian and Mahommedan, under Turkish rule, is no doubt true; but this is a very different thing from attempting the formation of a semi-independent province, which must, sooner or later, separate from the Turkish Empire, and can only become a dependency of Russia.

The Armenians are worthy of the sympathy, consideration, and help of England. Something might, no doubt, be done at the Congress to ensure for them, and especially for those who inhabit the Eastern provinces of Asia Minor, good and just government for the future, and, above all, protection from the Kurdish tribes, to whose excesses and outrages they have been constantly exposed. They are, in their own country, a quiet, industrious, and frugal people, chiefly engaged in agriculture, and living in friendly relations with the Mahommedan Turkish population which, like themselves, suffers from the lawless violence of the Kurds. In Constantinople, and in the principal towns of Turkey, they become prosperous bankers and merchants. Some of them fill confidential posts at the Porte, and are entrusted with important political affairs. Others are the agents of wealthy Turkish families, and of high officials, and thus exercise very considerable influence. Out of Turkey, as in India, they have been successful in commerce, and enjoy, I believe, a good reputation for intelligence and integrity. In Russia large numbers of them are engaged in trade, and some, probably natives of districts in her possession, have risen, as it has been seen during the war, to high commands in the army, General Melikoff and two other generals being, I am informed, of Armenian origin.

Of all the Christian communities subject to Turkish rule, the Armenian has been most disposed to live peaceably with her Mahommedan fellow-subjects, and even to amalgamate with them. The Armenians of Constantinople, speaking the Turkish language, are brought, more than the Greeks, into intimate relations with the Turks. It is greatly to the interest of the Porte to encourage the Armenians, and to treat them with justice and liberality, so as to satisfy them, and to prevent their turning to Russia for help and protection. England might contribute materially to this end. To give autonomy to a province which is at present quite incapable of self-government, would probably lead to more harm than good, and to results which would be far from favourable to British interests.

I have, &c.

(Signed) A. H. LAYARD.

F. 0. 424/69, pp. 54-55 No 107

Inclosure in No. 66

Memorandum.

M. T. TERKHAN, ex-Interpréte et Secrétaire de l’Agence Diplarnatique de Serbie, et Membre du Conseil National Arménien, est venu m’entretenir des aspirations de Ia majorite de Ia nation Arrnénienne en presence de Ia situation qui lui est faite par les derniers événements. Cette démarche était faite avec la connaissance du Patriarche Arménien, qui avait également exprimé son désir d’expliquer et de confirmer personnellement, dans une entrevue toute confidentielle avec le Représentant de la Reine, les faits dont l’exposé suit, sous la promesse que toutefois le compte-rendu de cet entretien éventuel ne figurerait pas dans le “Blue Book.”

Les Arméniens et leur Patriarche tiennent a constater avant tout qu’ils ne veulent en aucune facon de la protection Russe que amènerait indubitablement leur absorption par la Russie et ainsi La perte de leur nationalité.

La visite de Monseigneur Narsés a San Stephano et l’envoi d’un delegue a St. Petersbourg n’ont été que des mesures de prudence. Ii s’agissait surtout de ne pas abandonner les Arméniens, des Kurdes et des Circassiens. Le Grand Duc avait promis de prendre en consideration la requête, et en effet un Article du Traité mentionne des réformes en Arménie mais sous la surveillance d’un Commissaire Russe.

Cette derniCre partie de l’Article en question est loin de plaire aux Arméniens indépendants, qui voit dans cette ingérance d’un Commissaire Russe dans les affaires administratives de leur pays une porte ouverte a une agitation future a l’egal de celle qui a précédé les événements de la Bulgarie dans cette province, et ne devarit tourner qu’au profit des soi-disant protecteurs.

L’histoire des faits passes ces derniers temps est un enseignement pour les Arméniens qui ne tiennent nullement a servir a leur detriment d’instrument aux projets Russes.

La communauté Arménienne songe a envoyer une deputation près des membres du futur Congres, auxquels elle remettra un Memorandum pour que le sort des Chrétiens d’Arménie, tout aussi dignes d’intérêt que leurs autres coreligionnaires de Turquie, soit aussi traité dans le Congrés.

Ce Memorandum, tout en ne se prononçant pas contre Ia Russie, rappellera aux délegués Anglais au Congrés, outre l’opportunité de l’amélioration de Ia condition des Arméniens, la nécessité politique de proteger et garantir les intérêts Britanniques aux sources de l’Euphrate en y créant une autonomie Arménienne, ou tout au moms un Gouvernement comme celui du Liban, garanti par toutes les Puissances.

L’Angleterre a constamment manifesté ses apprehensions sur la possibilité d’une influence étrangère sur le chemin des Indes. Or, l’Arménie se trouvant dominer cette route, l’Angleterre doit tenir essentiellement a l’élimination de tout protectorat Russe dans ce pays.

En aspirant a une autonomie, ou tout au moms a une réforme radicale de l’administration de leur pays, les Arméniens ont la conscience d’être plus aptes a gouverner conformément aux lois de la civilisation et du progrès que les Turcs.

On pourrait, dans toutes les localités oü us constituent la majorité des habitants, confier l’administration municipale a des Arméniens.

Ii est evident qu’ils préféreraient être constitués en un Etat neutralisé et garanti, qui, tput restreint qu’il serait, pourrait s’étendre de la Mer Noire a Ia Méditerranée et être une digue aux progrès de la Russie vers le sud comme la Roumanie aurait pu l’être si elle eut été neutralisée en temps opportun.

Ii est notoire qu’après la guerre de Crimée 1’Angleterre songea a doter 1’Arménie d’une certaine autonomie.

La France qui, alors, esperait ramener les Arméniens au Catholicisme et faire d’eux les auxiliaires de sa politique en Turquie, s’était opposée a ces tendances de l’Angleterre.

Un point qu’il est important de constater, car il sera un des facteurs les plus puissants dans cette union Anglo-Arménienne, c’est la presque identité des rites Anglicans et Arméniens; leurs Articles de Foi ne présentent aucune difference sérieuse qui puisse faire apprehender l’impossibilité d’un rapprochement des deux religions, car l’appareil pompeux du rite Arménien, une fois éliminé, les doctrines restent sans points opposes qui ne puissent être résolus.

Jusqu’à cejour, le clergé et la Porte avaient le plus grand intérêt a empêcher la fusion des deux Eglises, mais le premier, devant Ia perspective de devenir dans un avenir plus ou moms éloigné le vassal de l’Orthodoxie Russe, doit aujourd’hui préférer le ralliement a une Eglise telle que celle d’Angleterre, dont elle n’a a craindre aucun empiètement, tout en restant en communauté de foi, d’esprit, et d’intérêts avec elle.

Pour faciliter l’oeuvre, l’Angleterre trouvera un vaste champ pour exploiter dans la misère des populations, l’abandon de l’agriculture resultant de l’incertitude des lendemains, en portant remède a ces maux par la creation d’écoles, d’établissements et le bien-être des peuples qui ne les ontjamais connus depuis des siêcles, et ainsi serviront de bases inébranlables a l’influence Anglaise.

En somme, les Arméniens espèrent voir doter leur pays de toutes les conquêtes de l’art et de l’industrie sous le protectorat Anglais. Jusque-la le Patriarche Arménien se verra force de composer avec la Russie, mais bien a contre coeur, redoutant son protectorat, qui, comme il est dit plus haut, déguiserait sans aucun doute des projets arnbitieux a la réalisation desquels elle emploiera les Armeniens en s’en servant comme instruments d’agitation.

Sans aucun doute qu’il existe un parti inclinant vers Ia Russie parmi les Arméniens. Ii se compose des fonctionnaires au service de la Porte, dont us partagent Ia politique Russophile, de ceux qui ont été gagnés secrétement a cette politique, et de certaines basses classes; mais la partie intelligente, éclairée de la nation est tout-à-fait opposée a ces tendances et préférerait encore rester sous Ia domination Turque que de se voir livrée a Ia Russie, qui en entreprendrait la russification, au contraIre de l’Angleterre, qui a toujours eu le respect des nationalités.

Les Arméniens croient que la creation d’un régime autonomique donnerait satisfaction a leurs intéréts légitimes comme a ceux de l’Occident, que l’extension de Ia puissance Russe parait devoir menacer ou léser aussi bien en Asic qu’en Roumélle. D’abord Ia Russie ne pourrait plus avoir les mêmes pretentions que par le passé, du jour oü die se trouvera en presence, sur la ligne frontière d’une population Chrétienne paisible, adonnée a l’industrie et au commerce, au lieu de ces hordes sauvages, l’approche de l’humanité dont la conduite barbarejustiflait l’ingerence de la Russie dans les affaires intérieures de Ia Turquie.

L’Angleterre se sentirait moms menacée quand elle verrait les positions des sources de I’Euphrate occupées par une population dévouée, ne pouvant de Iongtemps nourrir aucun projet ambitieux.

Ce ne serait méme pas un prejudice pour les Musulmans de ces localités, ou Chrétiens et Musulmans fraterniseraient bien vite si on substituait a ce régime inepte, qui pése a peu près autant sur les uns que sur ies autres, le respect des droits et une administration plus régulière.

Voici les limites de la partie de l’Arménie qui pourrait être sournise au regime autonome: La ligne de demarcation commencerait.à un point du littoral de Ia Mer Noire,

près Ia bouche du Khalys, entre Samsoun et Kerassonde, de là remontant Ia vallée de Chalkairla,jusqu’a Gumudu Hané, se diriger au sud et atteindre l’Euphrate a Eguine; puis en suivant le cours de Ce fleuvejusqu’a Biredjek se diriger vers l’est entre Afu et Harru, laissant au nord Ia province de Diarbekir, et passant enfin par Merdine longer Ia crete des Monts Djoudid, et s’arrêter aux confins du Royaume de Perse.

F. 0. 424/69, p. 55-56, No. 107/1