19 Ocak 2018 Cuma

10. 'British' Pashas of the Ottoman Army

The concessions granted to the British and pro-British administrations came with a blind trust in the British, not only in trade, but also in politics and military matters as well. It was explained in previous pages how the British deep state approached other countries and leaders under a friendly disguise. This tactic became very dominant, especially in the late Ottoman period. Primed by the British deep state, Ottoman administrations declared wars, signed treaties detrimental to the Empire and brought members of the British deep state to important positions. Indeed, particularly in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the army and the navy were entrusted mostly to British pashas, as another sign of this reckless attitude.

Many British officers were given important positions in the second half of the 19th century while most achieved the rank of 'pasha'. Most them, under the pretense of 'modernizing the army and training the soldiers', played active roles in Ottoman failure in many wars. The officers who were supposed to serve the Ottoman army were in fact nothing other than the agents of the British deep state.

The British Officers of the Ottoman
Hobart Pasha

Augustus Charles Hobart-Hampden, widely known as Hobart Pasha, was a naval captain who served in the Royal Navy. He worked as a midshipman in Brazil. Upon retirement, he joined the American Civil War and commanded a blockade runner, which conveyed British weapons to the South in exchange for cheap cotton. After the American Civil War, he joined the Ottoman army and was made rear-admiral.

Hobart Pasha was in charge of the Ottoman navy during the Russo-Turkish war (1877-78). During the conflict, the only position from which the Ottomans could block a Russian ground attack was the Danube River in Romania. The Ottoman navy was perfectly capable of preventing the Russian army's passage through the Siret River. However, Turkish ships under the command of Hobart Pasha, arrived too late to gain control of the river. Four to five days had already passed before four vessels could reach the critical points, allowing the Russian army to easily cross the river. The Ottoman army, which was on the verge of gaining control of the Balkans after defeating the Serbian and Montenegro armies, was stabbed in the back. From that point on, there was nothing that could stop the Russian navy from coming as far as Yeşilköy in Istanbul.

The Ottoman navy under Hobart Pasha's command was, in fact, a more powerful army than that of the Russians, but strangely wasn't used to defend the Balkans. Hobart Pasha sent the vessels from the western Black Sea to the Caucasus and left the ground troops in the Balkans without support. At the end of the war, the Ottomans had to cede both the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Vere Henry Hobart, Lord Hobart, who was the older brother of Hobart Pasha, was at the time the director-general of the Ottoman Bank. He later started working in the Ottoman Public Debt Administration that brought about the bankruptcy of the Empire.

Arnold Burrowes Kemball

During the Russo-Turkish war, Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha headed the Balkan forces of the Ottoman army. After the Russians passed the Danube River without incident, they advanced on Svishtov and Nikopol and easily won two battles. Since the main Balkan forces couldn't get to the region in time, the Turkish forces proved insufficient and in a matter of one week, two battles were lost.
British general Arnold Kemball was a part of the general staff of Abdülkerim Pasha. Kemball had previously fought against Muslims during the Afghan wars with the British army.

Valentine Baker or Baker Pasha

Valentine Baker was a felon that received a dishonorable discharge from the British army for rape. During the Russo-Turkish war, he served in the Ottoman army as a Brigadier General in Mehmet Ali Pasha's staff. Mehmet Ali Pasha, on the other hand, was a German who had converted to Islam and become an Ottoman citizen. His real name was Ludwig Karl Friedrich Detroit. The units commanded by Baker Pasha withdrew from the Tashkessen village, leaving even the injured behind in their fear. Bulgarian villagers killed all the remaining survivors. After that, Baker Pasha sent back some of his troops and set ablaze all the villages in the vicinity.

After this war, he returned to the British army and took over the newly established police force in Egypt and began to train their gendarme units.

Douglas Gamble and Hugh Pigot Williams

Five years before WWI, Douglas Gamble was hired as an advisor for the Ottoman navy and made the head of the 6th fleet under the pretense of 'reforming the fleet'. Gamble was also a former British navy intelligence officer. Unsurprisingly, when he returned to his homeland one year later, he fought with the British against the Turks.

British admiral Hugh Pigot Williams replaced Gamble as an advisor, and served in this position eight months before returning to his country. The next time he came back to Ottoman waters, he was the captain of the British battleship Irresistable in the Gallipoli campaign. In other words, right before WWI, the Ottoman navy had been entrusted to two British officers, who would soon turn against and fight the Ottomans.

Adolphus Slade or the Mushaver Pasha

After serving thirty years in the Royal Navy, Adolphus Slade joined the Ottoman navy as an admiral. Renamed 'Mushaver' (meaning 'consulting'), Slade was intricately involved in the Ottoman maritime force. When the Russians burnt the Ottoman fleet in Sinop during the Crimean War and sank twelve Ottoman ships, the only surviving ship was the one carrying Slade. As the Turkish fleet was being attacked, her so-called allies at the time, the French and British ships stationed in the Bosphorus, just watched.

In his memoir, Slade displayed the shocking hatred he harbored for Turks and Muslims (Turkish nation and Islamic world are above his remarks). He claimed that all Ottoman constituents, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, shared a common trait despite their differences and that was 'a total want of conscience' and continued, "A pasha slays his confiding guest; a kadi bastinadoes an innocent man; a banker cheats his patron; a servant robs his master; —all swearing on the Koran, or on the Talmud, or on the Testament, to their respective faith..."170

... nowhere, perhaps, has corruption in Turkey been more hideously displayed than in the Mekhemés, (courts of law,) where justice is sold to the highest bidder, and witnesses stand, almost within sight and sound of the mollah's cushions, ready with their stock in trade—their consciences.171

Three English line of battle ships and as many frigates, would prove an overmatch for it [the Ottoman naval force].172

Baldwin Wake Walker (Yavir Pasha) and Traitor Ahmet Fevzi Pasha

British Baldwin Wake Walker, or Yavir Pasha, joined the Ottoman navy in 1838 and served for seven years. In 1840, Ahmet Fevzi Pasha, using an insignificant incident as an excuse, handed over the fleet under his command to Muhammad Ali of Egypt, who had previously rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, he has gone down in history as the 'Traitor Ahmet Fevzi Pasha'. While the navy ships were anchored in Alexandria, Yavir Pasha, or Baldwin Walker, claimed that if he laid a siege on Egypt with the entire Ottoman navy, he could get back the ships. His true intentions were to make the Ottoman ships fight each other to weaken them in the process. However, the crisis came to an end when Muhammad Ali of Egypt agreed to return the ships on his own volition. It must be noted that Yavir Pasha had for years worked as the advisor of Traitor Ahmet Fevzi Pasha.

Henry Felix Woods or Woods Pasha

British Henry Felix Woods, also known as Woods Pasha, served more than 40 years in the Ottoman navy, most of it under Abdul Hamid II's reign. Woods was the main reason why the Ottoman navy completely rotted away during Abdul Hamid II's reign in the Golden Horn, despite the fact that it had been recently rebuilt under Sultan Abdülaziz's orders. According to the British Naval Forces policy, a British officer could not occupy a position for more than two years in a foreign country, but Woods spent 42 years in the Ottoman navy.

Engineers, captains and other technicians that Woods Pasha transferred for large sums, deliberately refrained from teaching their skills to the Turkish personnel and ensured that the true control was always with the British. As Woods described it in his memoir, Turkish mechanics, despite having worked for years, couldn't become head mechanics because British mechanics blocked their way to ascension. Particularly, the British mechanics enjoyed special privileges with respect to their duties.173

Woods Pasha was also a negotiator between key figures at the capital and Sultan Abdul Hamid II. He took special care to introduce British journalists to the Sultan and secretly provided intelligence to the British regarding the Sultan and the administration.174

The Battle of Navarino

The Battle of Navarino is known as one of the most ruthless naval fights in history. Led by the British deep state, the British, French and Russian navies launched a full-fledged attack on the Turkish fleet anchored at Navarino, located to the south of Greece. Muhammad Ali of Egypt also sent a fleet from Egypt to aid the Ottomans, which were at the time trying to suppress the Greek riot that was also instigated by the British deep state. There wasn't an official declaration of war; instead the allied naval forces of Britain, France and Russia suddenly began firing at the Turkish ships. Caught off-guard, 70 ships sank and more than 3,000 sailors were martyred. In a matter of three hours, the Gulf of Navarino became a bloodbath. One very important element in the battle was the presence of British and French sailors in the Turkish fleet. One day prior to the raid, French sailors in the fleet of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, fighting for the Ottomans, and British sailors in the Ottoman fleet switched sides. Not only did they desert their posts but they also deprived the Ottomans of important captaincy skills, because during that time, this important duty was given only to the people of the British deep state.

The British Deep State and the Caliphate

At the onset of the 17th century, many European states decided to follow in the footsteps of Portugal and Spain and began pursuing their own imperialistic desires. Britain proved the most ambitious.
The readers will recall how Britain had already set up East India Co. in the 1600s as the first step towards British imperialism. The company first directed its attention to the Indian subcontinent and established numerous trading posts across the region. After expanding rapidly, it began to build colonies before eventually taking control of territories.

By the 19th century, Spain and Portugal had begun to lose their colonies and entered their respective eras of decline. This meant that the South American countries, once colonies of Spain and Portugal, were now independent, but also available to British aspirations as open markets. In the meantime, having successfully completed the Napoleonic Wars in Europe (1800-1815), the British had gained new lands in the East.

Now, securing the main route to India –the jewel in the crown– was the top priority on the British imperialistic agenda. When the French completed the Suez Canal in 1869, the road to India became even shorter but its security became an even more sensitive issue. Britain had begun to build spheres of influence along the Red Sea and Arabian shores despite Ottoman protests. Furthermore, by promising to supply weapons to the Ottoman Empire should Russia obtain control of East Anatolia, Britain gained control of Cyprus in 1878, which was a strategically important island much like Gibraltar Strait or Malta. Similar methods were used by the same deep organization to gain control of areas in the Far East.

All these developments turned Britain into a massive empire with colonies all around the world, where millions of Muslims were living, making the control of this population a critical point for Britain. However, there was a problem: those Muslims, due to their Islamic identity, were loyal to the Ottoman Caliph, who was the spiritual and political leader of the world's Muslims. He had the power to bring millions of Muslims together within a strong alliance with just one word. For this reason, the biggest threat to the British deep state in its quest of gaining control over Muslim lands was the Ottoman Empire and the Caliph.

British Deep State Provokes Arabs against the Caliph

Muslims all around the world deeply revered the Ottoman Sultan, who was their caliph. In the beginning, the British deep state sought to use this loyalty to its advantage. For instance, in a conflict with the Kingdom of Mysore in South India, Britain asked Ottoman Sultan Selim III to write a letter to Tipu Sultan of the Kingdom of Mysore to advise him to not fight the British.1 Selim III indeed wrote this letter in 1798.

When wide-scaled riots broke out in India in 1857 against British occupation, Britain once again asked for the help of the Sultan. At the same time, this impressive influence of the Caliphate was worrying the British deep state. What if the circumstances changed, and the religious and political influence of the Caliphate became a threat to Britain? For this reason, they came up with a multi-layered caliphate policy, which would involve gradual undermining of the Caliphate's authority among the Muslim population living under British rule.

George Percy Badger, an adviser to the British Foreign Secretary, prepared a report in January 1873 on the Ottoman Caliph. He claimed that since the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Arab, the caliphate had to be an Arabic institution. However, Ottoman sultans were viewed and revered especially by Asian Muslims as the true caliph. Using the 'ethnicity' card as a deception, the British deep state sought to rally Arab Muslims against the Ottoman Empire. According to their deep plans, this tactic would prevent Arabs from recognizing Ottoman sultans as their caliph and thus diminish the influence of Ottoman caliphs in the Islamic world.2

Five months after this report was penned, the Foreign Office instructed all the British consuls in Asia to investigate the religious and political developments in the Muslim world.3 In other words, Britain began its efforts to turn sixty million Muslims living under British rule against the Ottomans and the Caliph.

Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, a diplomat of the British Foreign Office, was known as an expert on Arabs and the Middle East. As one of the prominent supporters of the Arab independence movement during his visits to the region, Blunt devised plans to break off the Arabs from the Ottoman Empire. In his book The Future of Islam, he made serious accusations against the Ottoman Caliphate:

… that the House of Othman has been and is the curse of Islam, and that its end is at hand. … They know that as long as there is an Ottoman Caliph, whether his name be Abd el Aziz or Abd el Hamid, moral progress is impossible, that the ijtahad cannot be re-opened … Abd el Hamid's rule is neither juster nor more in accordance with the Mussulman law than that of his predecessors. … A return, therefore, to Medina or Mecca is the probable future of the Caliphate.4

Blunt also claimed that the culprit behind the backward state of the Arabs, who had built great civilizations in the past, was the Ottoman Empire. He believed that Britain was now an empire with millions of Muslim constituents and that instead of supporting a caliphate sitting in Istanbul, it would be more strategic and logical for Britain to invest in an Arab caliph that is under British control and who could be easily manipulated. He was convinced that if independent Arab kingdoms were set up and the Caliphate was transferred to Mecca, Ottoman control in the region could come to an end.

Graat, the British Foreign Secretary for India, in his letter to Kitchener, the British Consul-General in Egypt, revealed the kind of Arab state the British deep state wished to see:

Britain never desires to see a powerful Arabic Caliphate. We don't want a united Arab state. Arabs must be in a fragmented, weakened situation. If they become emirates under our control, as small as possible, they shall have little resistance to British, but will still serve as a buffer zone against other big countries of the West.5

Another Western source reveals the status the British planned for the Arabs and Caliphate during WWI:

Sticking to their old policies of creating division and dissension to maintain their control easily, the British never wanted a united and powerful [Arab] empire, no matter what the consequences, because the ruler of such an empire would want to remain independent. The British instead wishes political unions made up of smaller states, which would require British arbitration in case of disagreements. British also didn't have any intentions of giving up on their sovereignty claims over the governorates of Kuwait, Bahrain, Muscat, Hadhramaut in favor of a big Arab empire. On the other hand, caliphate was a sensitive issue for Britain as it had to take into consideration the sentiments of Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims, however, tended to side with Turks, rather than the Arabs. They wanted to remain loyal to the Caliph in Istanbul.6

In the end, the Arab world of 100 million people divided into sixteen separate countries was fraught with conflicts. The only winner was the British deep state.

Throughout the end of the 1800s and early 1900s, the main policy of the British deep state has been fragmenting the Arab world and breaking them apart both from the Ottoman Empire and each other. As the following pages will be covering in more detail, the British deep state has made numerous attempts during and after WWI to make those ambitions come true. Through their spies disguised as 'archeologists' such as Gertrude Bell, and Lawrence of Arabia, they carried out this policy and provoked Arab tribes against the Ottoman Empire, sometimes offering incentives in form of money and weapons.

Homosexual British spy Lawrence of Arabia explained this fake victory that he achieved by pitting communities against each other, saying that he created an Arab 'brown dominion' within the British Empire by rallying Arabs and making them rebel against the Turks.7

Clearly, the true aim has never been an Arab independence or a big Arab state, because Arabs were always considered by the British deep state as their colony. Regrettably, the same state of mind still prevails and the insidious colonial ambitions of the British deep state regarding the Arab countries are still underway.

However, it must be remembered that the British deep state failed in its plots against the Caliphate. No matter what it did, the last stop of the Caliphate remained in the Ottoman Empire and when the Empire collapsed, the Caliphate hadn't been abolished. On the contrary, instead of vesting the power in a single person, the Caliphate was entrusted to the Republic and the title is still waiting for its true owner. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk knew very well that in the End Times, the Mahdi (pbuh) would appear and take over as the spiritual leader of Muslims at a time of intense conflicts. Mustafa Kemal built the Republic regime and its institutions based on this knowledge. We know from the hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that the Mahdi (pbuh) will appear in Istanbul in the current era, put an end to the wars, terror and conflicts and bring true peace and love to the world.

1. Azmi Özcan, "İngiltere'de Hilafet Tartışmaları 1873 – 1909", İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Islamic Research), Issue 2, 1998, p. 49
2. Memo by G. P. Badger, "Respecting Turkey and Russia in Their Relations with Arabia and Central Asia", enc. to Frere to Granville, 26.11.1873, F. O, 424/32
3. Azmi Özcan, Pan-Islamism, Indian Muslims, the Ottomans & Britain (1877-1924), Leiden: Brill, 1997, p. 40
4. Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, The Future of Islam, The Project Gutenberg EBook, 2005, pp. 55, 62
5. Süleyman Kocabaş, Osmanlı İsyanlarında Yabancı Parmağı, Bir İmparatorluk Nasıl Parçalandı?, (Foreign Intrusion in Ottoman Riots, How An Empire Was Dismembered), Vatan Yayınları, October 1992, p. 96
6. Ibid., pp. 96-97

7. Ibid., p. 102
Turks in the British Deep State Documents

In the final section of this part on the reasons that led to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, readers will see some of the quotes documented by researcher Erol Ulubelen in his book İngiliz Gizli Belgelerinde Türkiye (Turkey in the Secret British Documents). The remarks of certain British politicians, soldiers and statesmen controlled by the British deep state clearly show that similar sinister plots are still underway.

(The noble Turkish nation is above such remarks)

British would treat anti-Turk Christians kindly and say all whips to beat the Turkish dog would be good.175

US President Wilson: Having studied the question of the Turks in Europe for a long time, it is my opinion that they ought to be cleared out of Constantinople ...176

Lord Curzon: Turks must be thrown out of Europe. As the American Senator Lodge said, Constantinople should be totally taken from Turks, this nest of pestilence, creator of wars and blasphemy for neighbors, should be wiped off from Europe.177

Lloyd George: Turks have betrayed us. We have lost thousands of people in Gallipoli. Who cares that Turks die now?178
The British Deep State Plans to Dismember the Ottoman Empire

Various British diplomats' and politicians' views and suggestions to dismember the Ottoman Empire in the documents of the British deep state can be found below:

Mr. Marling: The concessions to be made to the Albanians, they say, must eventually be made not only to the other Balkan provinces but also to the Arabs, Kurds, Armenians and other nationalities, a policy which must entail the dismemberment of the Empire.179

G. Buchanan: Entire Turkish-controlled Europe should belong to the Christians… The issue of Crete should be solved in favor of Greece.180

Lord Kitchener: Turkish collapse seems to be complete… Everything that Turks claim to be theirs in Sudan must pass to Britain.181

A. Nicolson: …The British ... held that the only way to avoid a repetition of the Cretan question was for Greece to hold all the Islands other than Tenedos and Imbros….182

Mr. Erskine: ...unless they can destroy the Turkish fleet the position in the future will be much the same as now. Admiral Kerr tells me in confidence that some time ago he submitted a rather bold plan of action, which he thought offered good prospects of success...183

A meeting in the British Foreign Office: …Conclusion: Financial matters can never be entrusted to Turks. Also, Turks will pay all occupation expenses and the price for the collected commissions… Senior Litti said: 'Turks will want Izmir, and we'll say 'pay us all that we spent for occupation. Since they are not going to do that, we'll keep Izmir.' Then Lloyd George said, 'our units in Syria will leave, so are we going to pay for it? How nonsensical is that? Turks should pay all of it. British taxpayers paid 750 million sterling for that. We'll get it back from the Turks in gold coins. We have to gain control of the gold stocks of Turks.'… Mr. Cambon said 'we should first destroy their patriotic leaders.'… Lloyd George said: 'We'll tell the Sultan [Vahdettin], we're getting all the flesh, you can keep the bones'.184

The answer to the Turkish government: We carefully examined the message of the Turkish government. Turks, … by entering the war, caused casualties and poverty… They caused the deaths of millions of people and loss of billions of sterling. Turkey has to pay a very big price so that freedom in the world can be rebuilt… Non-Turk ethnic groups will become independent states. Izmir and Thrace will be taken from Turks and a free Armenia will be set up within the borders determined by the US President [W. Wilson]… Strict measures will be taken to ensure that Turks don't betray the civilized world again. For this reason, Turkish lands will be turned into a small state… Imperialist desires of the Turkish people will be erased.

As to the autonomy of the Straits:

1. All military facilities along the Straits will be demolished and all coasts and islands will be arms-free.
2. Disarmament costs will be borne by Turks or Greeks.
3.No soldiers other than Allied soldiers can be present on the islands.

Turkish gendarme will report to us and all debts of the Turks will be paid by the Turks. If you don't sign the treaty, you will be driven out of Europe for sure. We are giving you ten days for your perusal.185
The British Deep State and the Armenian Riots

Official and classified British documents reveal a great deal about the thoughts of British politicians on Armenian riots:
Mr. O'Beirne: The Armenian riot is the best way to declare war against the Turks… German armies being on the side of the Turks will strengthen the triple treaty, lead to these reforms and will be followed by an Armenian uprising.186

E. Grey: …Breaking off six provinces for a united Armenia will make other ethnicities in Asian Turkey to follow suit.187

Harbord: …We travelled all regions from Istanbul to Mardin…. We haven't seen any indication that Turks wanted to kill the Armenians… Three months ago, we heard that all Armenians were slaughtered down to the last man. But none of it was actually true. The French wanted to make Ottoman a French mandate, and to this end, they felt they had to make the world suspicious of the Turks.188

Mr. Kitson: …I have no doubts about the will of Armenians about killing their Muslim neighbours. Armed Armenian Dashnak gangs are working with extraordinary savagery.… Although we don't trust them, it is in our interests to use the Kurds. As to the Eastern provinces, we cannot separate those regions and make them Kurdistan and Armenia without fighting the Turks first.189

London Conference: …Trabzon and Adana should also be given to Armenia, in addition to those six provinces. The US will help Armenia… Some people say "There is not even one Armenian in Trabzon. So isn't it ridiculous to have an Armenia without Armenians?''… A small Turkish state should be set up, the capitulations can be extended to cover jurisprudence as well. We had to lift the capitulations in Japan, because they were strong. We had no other option. Turkish mind was far less precise than the Japanese.190 [Noble Turkish nation is above such statements.]

A meeting in the British Foreign Office: … Lloyd George: 'We have to drive Turks out of Istanbul'… Mr. Cambon: 'Mustafa Kemal Pasha is the source of all problems and the Sultan has a hard time keeping him in check'…. 1/3 of the French groups are French soldiers and the rest is indigenous Armenians… If our commissioner in Istanbul cannot prevent these, he should threaten the Sultan by saying 'otherwise we'll kick you out of Istanbul'. If at the time, when Erzurum was supposed to be taken by the new Armenian State, Mustafa Kemal wasn't around, the Armenians could have a chance… Mustafa Kemal's troops are not paid, it is their love for their country that drives them.191

A British report: Ardahan, Batum and İmer valley will be given. Armenian borders with Kurdistan and Turkey will be as follows: Yanbati River in Blacksea … Western border of Erzurum, Bitlis river.192

San Remo Conference: …The borders of Turkey: Erzurum will be given to Armenians and thus the Great Armenian State theory will become true. Italian Nitti, '…Since Turks are the majority in Erzurum, we have to find a way to kick them out. Lately Erzurum has been the center of the nationalist movement.' Mr. Berthelot, 'Mustafa Kemal and his forces can be eliminated through bribery or by other means'… Mr. Aharonian said, "Mustafa Kemal's army is much smaller than you think and is undisciplined."193 [Noble Turkish nation is above such statements.]
Lord Curzon (regarding his meeting with Boghos Nubar and Avetis Aharonian in London, April 11 1920): I scolded them for their stupid actions. I explained [to] them the stupidity of wasting on the Azerbaijanis, the weapons that we gave them to use on the Turks.194

Admiral F. de Robeck: I have talked to Mr Khatissian. He informed me that, they received 25,000 rifles, Armenian army has 30,000 Russian made rifles and one million bullets. When the Greek advance starts, Armenians will instantly join the attack.195
The British Deep State and the Turkish War of Independence

Classified British documents contain the following statements about the Turkish War of Independence:

British Foreign Policy Documents: 1919-1939

Turks think that it is only the Greek invasion they are facing, and are getting ready to fight them. But Greeks are only a part of the allied plan.196

Let's not stir the Turks, and let's make them feel that the war is over… Greeks and Italians are deciding where they will occupy… We have to make Turks think that this is going to stop.197
Admiral F. de Robeck: … Sultan asked the British authorities to stop the nationalists by using force. 

… The Grand Vizier and the Minister of Internal Affairs accept the severity of the situation and ask an Allied permission to suppress the insurgency… Grand Vizier Ferid Pasha's government declared war on the nationalists and decided that nationalists cannot be reasoned with… Although the British played the main role in the fight against the Turks, Britain is in a better position today in Turkish newspapers and even in nationalist papers.198

A speech on American radio: …Mustafa Kemal told me: 'Our government was weakened through foreign plots and interventions. It is a lie that the nationalists received aid from the British and the French. British capital is destroying Turkey. We know that Adil Bey, the former President of the Society of the Friends of England, who is now in England, received 200,000 sterling, while Konya governor got 150,000 sterling and possibly Ankara governor got a similar amount, as well.'199
Mr. Ryan's report: … Since the nationalist forces [in Turkey] were getting stronger, it was requested that a government force of 40,000 troops be used against the nationalists. Grand Vizier immediately accepted this request.200

During the meeting in Villa Belle: … Lloyd George said 'Mustafa Kemal's success might rub on the Arabs, for this reason he definitely has to be crushed… We improved Greek's fight abilities, and diminished Turks.201 [Noble Turkish nation is above such statements.]

During the meeting in Villa Franeuse: … Istanbul administration can help us suppress the Turkish nationalist movement, which is a threat not only to us, but for the entire world…We cannot show any mercy to Turks that caused the war to last for two years. Mr. Venizelos said, 'If there was a possibility, we could use something other than guns against Turks, but Turks won't understand anything other than guns.'202

Admiral F. de Robeck: … All the Anatolian movements belong to Mustafa Kemal's nationalist movement. Damad Ferid wishes to send troops to stop the nationalist movement… Only Turks don't respect the decisions we made.203
Admiral F. de Robeck: … Turks won't accept to be ruled by Greeks, especially after the disgrace Greeks caused in Izmir… British officers and our people are cooperating to kill the Turks… Turks are great fighters, they have little ammunition and no transportation… Turks will have no rights in Kurdistan under the peace treaty to be signed with them. We have to be sure of the situation with regards to Kurdistan. Even Kurds don't know what they want… Erzurum is one of the most powerful fortresses of Turks, they won't accept that a big Turkish land is given to Armenians… British Empire has seized all the lands that once belonged to the Turkish Empire.204

Admiral F. de Robeck: … The reason for the Anatolian movement is the Greek invasion and their horrible actions. The foundation of the great Armenia and Pontus states also contributed to it.205
Admiral F. de Robeck: … We received a letter from the Prime Minister [grand vizier] condemning Mustafa Kemal. He declares them as rebels that defy the orders of the government and says that people should be loyal to the government, instead.206

Admiral F. de Robeck: … Damad Ferid [grand vizier] is worried about his personal security and the security of his people. Would you allow me to say to him that should the nationalists take over the administration in Turkey, his life and the Sultan's life will be under our protection? Ferid claims that he is the only person that can influence the Sultan and that he created the pro-British stance. If Damad Ferid resigns, we must guarantee that he and the Sultan can leave the country in a dignified manner. … If the Sultan steps down, I will help him leave Turkey.207

H. Rumbolt: … the British Vice-Consul reported that lack of discipline in army is beginning to be admitted even by Greek G.H.Q. Kondylis, Officer Commanding Third Regiment, was mobbed by troops at Salihli and only escaped by hiding under coal in tender of train. It seems that the Greeks won't be able to pull this off by themselves.208
Kurdistan Plan of the British Deep State

Confidential British documents reveal the British deep state plans to break up the Turkish territory and build a Kurdistan in its place:

Admiral A. Calthorpe: … Major Noel says that if he can reach an agreement with Kurdish chiefs, that will be useful. (Sayyid) Abdülkadir and Bedir Khan, the Kurdish chiefs in Istanbul, are less important people. They will go to Kurdish regions separately from Noel, so as to not rouse suspicion… Kurds haven't yet risen up against Mustafa Kemal but Noel is sure that he can make it happen.209
Mr. Hohler: … My problem is KURDS. Noel came here from Baghdad… He wishes to be the prophet of the Kurds… I am afraid Noel may turn out a Kurdish Lawrence.'. Since Mesopotamia is going to belong to us now, we can make him found a KURDISH STATE and defend the northern mountains. I spoke to (Sayyid) Abdülkadir and the likes of him. I made it as clear as words five times repeated can make things clear that we were not out for intrigues against the Turks, and that I could promise nothing whatsoever as regards the future of Kurdistan. [The Kurds] are like a rainbow of every shade of colour. Since the aim of her Majesty's government is weakening the Turks as much as possible, it is not a bad idea to mobilize Kurds like this.210

Admiral Webb: Kurdish nationalists were probably aware by spring 1919 that the Allies were thinking of partitioning eastern Anatolia between an Armenian state in the vilayets of Erzerum and Trabzon under American auspices, and a Kurdish state in the remaining four vilayets of Bitlis, Van, Diyarbakir and Elazig, presumably under British auspices. The prime minister was very impressed with the idea…211

Mr. Hohler: … I don't care about the situation of the KURDS AND ARMENIANS. We pay attention to the Kurdish problem only because of Mesopotamia. On the other hand, Wilson is scaring me, his agents are always making mistakes. But he [Noel] is another fanatic … I agree with you that the BORDERS OF ARMENIA AND KURDISTAN ARE NOT DEFINITE. KURDISH PROBLEM exists to create a satisfactory border in Mesopotamia… 212

Admiral F. de Robeck: … Mr. Hohler talked to Kurdish leader Sheikh Said Abdülkadir Pasha for the Kurdish problem. Kurds have pinned their hopes on the British. In the meantime, Mustafa Kemal is getting more dangerous. Forces are ready to spend whatever is necessary to use the Kurds against Mustafa Kemal.213

Meeting notes: … Kurdish tribes will be placed under British and French protection, NO TURK will be left at all in KURDISTAN. It will be decided if it is going to be a SINGLE KURDISH STATE or multiple small KURDISH STATES. Weapons will be supplied to Armenians via Americans… A secret organization was set up in Istanbul and is declaring nationalists traitors…214

Admiral F. de Robeck: … Kurdistan must detach from Turkey completely and gain autonomy. We can reconcile the Kurdish and Armenian interests. Sayyid Abdülkadir, the head of the Kurdish club in Istanbul and Şerif Pasha, the Kurdish delegate in Paris, are at your service.215

Admiral F. de Robeck: … [Grand Vizier] Damad Ferid came to me and said, 'According to the peace treaty, Kurds will have their separate state. Kurdish leaders don't like Mustafa Kemal. You hate Mustafa Kemal because he doesn't accept the treaty you prepared. Then let's all together, mobilize Kurds against Mustafa Kemal.'216
The Armenian Issue Manipulated by the British Deep State

The 150-Year-Old Project to Weaken Turkey
Before we begin to study the Armenian issue in detail, which has been a controversial issue since WWI, it is important to keep in mind that everything that happened during those years took place in the course of an all-encompassing world war that cost the lives of millions of people. Both parties suffered immensely as a result.

Turkey's official position on the matter is demanding an examination of historical archives, and commissioning an independent international committee, which will examine the accuracy of the allegations based on historical records. Needless to say, going back to the historical records is important so that the truth can be known, baseless allegations can be eliminated, and justice can be established. However, the most important goal should be leaving behind the past and working to rebuild our friendship and brotherhood. There is no doubt that both Armenians and Turks suffered heavy losses during the war but holding grudges and calling each other to account for events of centuries ago is not the right course of action. Today's generations should focus on building a union of love, which will bring happiness to everyone.

Armenians are honest, bright and decent people. For centuries, we have lived together as a family; they have been great assets to our nation and made great contributions with their trustworthy, artistic, educated and talented characters. They held top administrative positions not only in the Ottoman government, but also in the Ottoman Army. However, the British deep state worked relentlessly to tear this beautiful people away from us, to break our bond. Such aspirations continue even today. This deep organization has always used the Armenian issue as leverage in reaching its goals. As we examine the history of the Armenian problem, it is important to carefully study these points.

We are dedicating this whole chapter to the Armenian problem in the Ottoman Empire, because it was mostly incited, planned and orchestrated by the British deep state. The mistaken beliefs that 'radical nationalism and conflicts between races would bring about improvement', which originated and spread to the rest of the world from Britain, caused serious problems in Anatolian communities, like they did among many Middle Eastern peoples. Particularly after oil was discovered in the region, the increasing geopolitical and geostrategic importance of the region gave even more of an incentive to the British deep state and it sped up its plots involving the regional people including Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Arabs, and Turks among others. By numerous plots, the British deep state drove a wedge between us and our Armenian brothers and sisters. Therefore, it is crucial to keep this point in mind and carefully consider the evidence offered in the following pages. 
The Loyal People or 'Millet-i Sadıka'

The first interaction between the Muslims and Anatolian Armenians took place during the reign of the four caliphs. Muslims under the command of Uthman ibn Affan arrived in Caucasus in 640 and took full control of the region in 653. Muawiya, the then Syrian governor and the first ruler and founder of the Umayyads, refrained from Arabization or Islamization policies and instead offered broad autonomies to the indigenous Nakharar families.

When Sultan Alp Arslan defeated the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the doors of Anatolia were opened to Turks. From that point on, Turks and Armenians have lived together side by side on these lands. It should also be noted that after the fall of the Seljuks, the Armenian Church maintained its presence under Turkish, Iranian and Mongol rules until the Ottoman Emirate built the Anatolian union.

When Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror took Istanbul in 1453, a sort of golden age for the Armenians began. Sultan Mehmed II, completely of his own accord, invited Hovageem to Istanbul and established an Armenian Patriarch next to the Greek Patriarch in 1461. Hovageem was the spiritual leader of the Armenians at the time. Following this development, the Patriarch was declared the leader of the Armenian community by the Sultan's decree and the Armenians were entrusted to his care. This development prompted Armenian populations around the world to come to Istanbul and form Istanbul's strong Armenian community. After Eastern Anatolia and South Caucasia were conquered during the reigns of Sultan Selim I and Sultan Suleiman I, the Armenian population in the newly taken areas was also incorporated in the Istanbul community and bonded to the Istanbul Patriarch. Throughout the history of Ottoman rule, Armenians enjoyed great freedoms in religion, politics, economy and culture.

Armenians, as the trusted, reliable and friendly non-Muslim constituents of a Muslim country, were known as the 'Loyal People' (Millet-i Sadıka). They formed a precious and indispensable part of Ottoman society. Just as every other Ottoman citizen, they enjoyed many rights and liberties in the Ottoman Empire, practiced their religion freely and without any inhibition engaged in business and social life. This is the path to which the Qur'an guides us.

Among the people of the Book there are some who believe in God and in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, and who are humble before God. They do not sell God's signs for a paltry price. Such people will have their reward with their Lord. And God is swift at reckoning. (Qur'an, 3:199)

The Speech of Mesrob II Mutafyan of Constantinople, the 84th Patriarch of Turkey's Armenians

Mesrob II Mutafyan, the 84th Patriarch of Turkey's Armenians expressed his feelings during a speech given at the reception held in Hilton Hotel on May 22, 1999:

… In 1461, only eight years after Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror took Istanbul, he issued an edict and established the Istanbul Patriarchy. This was a clear indication of Sultan Mehmed II's and other Ottoman Sultans' visionary characters and their embracing attitude towards other faiths. Indeed, Sultan Mehmed II was the first and last ruler in history to establish a spiritual leadership institute for the members of another religion… As we enter the new millennium with all the wars and conflicts going on around the world, we can better appreciate the importance of this incident that took place 538 years ago and better understand the importance of love and respect for different faiths and cultures.

The Writings of Mateos of Edessa [Urfa]

Famous Armenian historian from Urfa, Mateos described the Seljuk approach to Armenians: 'Malik-Shah's heart was full of compassion and goodness for the Christians. He treated the children of Jesus very kindly. He brought peace, wealth and happiness to the Armenian people.'

Mateos also wrote the following after the death of Sultan Kilij Arslan:

The death of Kilij Arslan deeply saddened the Christians. This Sultan had a noble character and loved to help.1

These examples clearly show the peaceful atmosphere that Armenians enjoyed for centuries of their harmonious co-existence with Turks.

1. Matthew of Edessa, Urfalı Mateos Vekayi-namesi (952-1136), The Chronicle, no.129, p. 146 
'Armenian Territory' as a Propaganda Tool

The Armenian issue, which is today used by the British deep state as a propaganda tool, is based on the allegation that Eastern Anatolia has always been a land that solely belonged to the Armenians. Before we elaborate why the claim is baseless, we must note that the modern state of Armenia with its current borders is a friendly neighbor of Turkey and its citizens have been the brothers and sisters of the Turkish people for almost 1,000 years. Turkey respects the existence, borders and international rights of Armenia, as is the case with its other neighbors. More importantly, Turkey desires all these countries to be lasting and strong.

However, the above allegation made by certain circles that the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey is Armenian's only, contradicts historical facts.

According to this allegation developed by the British deep state, the Turks have been an occupying force on the Armenian lands starting with the Seljuks and followed by the Ottomans, and even persecuted them. These allegations suggest that the so-called oppression continues even today. However, a close examination of the common Turkish-Armenian history will reveal the baseless nature of these allegations. It should also be noted that Armenians did not have such claims until WWI, when the British deep state started its black propaganda on this matter.

First of all, the allegation that the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey is exclusively an Armenian homeland does not reflect historical facts. The region in question, where Armenians once lived in large groups, was a Persian province from 521 until 344 B.C., before becoming a part of the Macedonian Empire from 344 to 215 B.C., and then a part of the Seleucid Empire. It was later transferred to and fro between the Rome Empire and the Parthian Empire, then became a Sasanid province and finally a Byzantine land. After the 7th century, the region was controlled by the Umayyad Caliphate, followed by the Abbasid rule that continued until the end of the 10th century, when the Byzantine Empire retook the lands. After the 10th century, the Turks arrived in the region.

Armenians are an ancient, civilized people that have existed in the region since antiquity. Throughout history though, they either lived under the rule of various other nations, or their own states acted as a buffer zone between the big empires of the time and were subjected to frequent interventions. The 
Armenians will certainly continue to live in Eastern Anatolia, which will always be their home. However, as the historical data indisputably shows, it would be incorrect to assert that Eastern Anatolia is an exclusively Armenian region where no other nation's people ever lived.

Armenian historian Kevork Aslan confirms this truth with the following words:

Armenians lived as feudal states. They don't have a bond based on a sense of a shared land. Neither do they have political bonds. They answer only to feudal states where they reside, and therefore their feelings of patriotism are regional. Their bonds are not based on politics, but are rather due to their shared religion and language.217
The British Deep State Begins to Manipulate Some Armenians

A close examination of the British policy of the East in the second half of the 19th century will reveal the close links Britain built with indigenous people. Needless to say, these ties were not built to help these people, but rather to make sure that they could be manipulated to serve the British policies in the most 'efficient' ways. Hundreds of Britons were sent to the region for this purpose, and carried out activities disguised as 'archeologists, religious scholars, historians, or teachers'. Some planted and nourished divisive thoughts in the society, while others provoked the leading figures of communities against the central administration. Armenians, which are one of the ancient communities of Anatolia, became a primary target of the numerous spies dispatched to the region by Britain at the time.

The Treaty of Berlin, signed on July 13, 1878 under pressure from the British, forced the Ottomans to introduce reforms in Rumelia (Ottoman lands in Europe) and regions where Armenians lived. These reforms, which on the surface were bringing additional rights and liberties to the regional people, in truth marked the beginning of the control of the British deep state over the Armenians, an Orthodox Christian community. However, it wasn't an easy task to convince Orthodox Armenians to ally with the Protestant British. Indeed, the conversion in question took many years, took many British spies, sectarian missionaries and intense propaganda through the Western media.
Emilius Clayton, who was at the time British Vice-Consul at Van, sent a report to London on November 29, 1879 that argued the Armenian state should either not be founded at all, or if it was going to be established, Russian control over it should not be allowed. The Vice-Consul believed that the Ottoman Empire would collapse and so reforms should be guided to allow the establishment of a British-controlled Armenian state. He wrote, 'Armenians would first prosper and get strong as a British or European protectorate, and get ready politically. Then, Armenians in other regions would be transferred to Eastern Anatolia to increase the total Armenian population. However, no matter the size of migration they would always remain a minority. So, as a secondary step, the Turkish population would gradually be driven out of Eastern Anatolia. Only Kurds and Assyrians should be left. Assyrians would set aside their sectarian differences with the Armenians and mingle with them. Kurds, on the other hand 'would be forced to behave at gunpoint', and compelled to live together with the Armenians. All of this would be undertaken under Ottoman rule, as a part of the enforcement of reforms. And when the time comes and Ottoman Empire collapses, an independent state would be founded for Armenians. But since this makeshift state could not survive on its own, it would have to live under 'strong British hegemony'.218

The plan seemed to work. With the pretense of overseeing the Ottoman efforts to improve the rights of Christian constituents, Britain sent consuls to various Ottoman provinces. Usually selected from 
high-ranking soldiers, these consuls stepped outside the boundaries of their duties and carried out intelligence work in the region. Even worse, upon false information, they provoked, organized and armed some of our Armenian citizens, before blatantly inciting them to rebel.

In the beginning there were serious trust and communication issues between the British consuls and the Armenian community due to sectarian differences. In order for the said consuls/spies to win over the Armenians, the Armenians first had to be made Protestants. To this end, certain American missionaries were sent to the region, mostly to Mardin. These efforts angered the local people and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. British consuls, on the other hand, offered protection to both these missionaries and the new Protestant converts. Needless to say, this protection wasn't offered out of respect for their faith, but rather due to strategic concerns regarding the region.

This certainly wasn't the first time that this strategy was applied on Ottoman lands. Ahmed Hamdi, the then Tekirdağ district officer, made the following warning about the imminent danger:

The Protestant community in Tekirdağ stated that they were British protégés. British Consul, in the meantime, continues to meddle in everything, claims that Protestants are under his country's protection and wishes to have them under his control. Since his attitude is causing problems and confusion in the city, it can be said that unless a precaution is taken, the Armenian community will come under the British rule after being converted to Protestantism. Since the desire of the Consul is to make the Armenian community loyal to himself and since such a development will be harmful to our country in every way, we are strongly in need of the Prime Ministry's urgent instructions as to how we should proceed about the issue. Please kindly advise us how to proceed with regards to the Protestant community.219 (August 21, 1858, Tekirdağ District Officer, Ahmed Hamdi)
The British Deep State's Base for Armenian Riots: Cyprus

Before the secret Cyprus Treaty of 1878, which supposedly temporarily transferred Cyprus' rule to the British, 45,000 Muslims and some 100,000 non-Muslims were living on the island. Armenians, Greeks, Jews and a small number of Nazarenes constituted the non-Muslim population. Some British people, supposedly missionaries, actively worked on the island to influence this Christian population. When the British managed to obtain the control of the island, they opened a school for Armenians to gain favor with them. This marked the first step towards the British deep state ambition to use Cyprus as a base for the Armenian issue. So much so, Dashnak and Hunchak resistance movements –that were behind many riots– were organized in Cyprus. The Society for the Friends of Armenia and Committee of Armenian Refugees Foundation were based in Cyprus, while certain Anatolian Armenian groups who were provoked into rioting were being increasingly directed and managed from Cyprus. Sivasliyan, who was the head of Hunchakian Revolutionary Party based in Britain and a lawyer located in Famagusta, was enthusiastically rallying the Armenians of the island against the Ottoman Empire and tried to convince them to participate in the riots taking place on the mainland.
Cyprus wasn't only a cultural and social center used to incite certain Armenian groups; it was also an important logistics hub for the insurgency. Ottoman Armenians and European Armenians that sympathized with the riots were communicating via Cyprus. Similarly, pro-riot Armenians who fled abroad or who planned to return to Anatolia could do so secretly by way of Cyprus. After taking part in riots in Aleppo, Diyarbakır, Bitlis, Hakkari and Van, the Armenian rebels would board ships in Iskenderun and Mersin and sail to Cyprus. They easily changed identities, taking advantage of British rule, and then left for Europe or the US.

Weapons purchased by certain Armenian groups in Europe were also dispatched to Armenian insurgents via Cyprus. The entire operation was masterminded, controlled and guided by the British deep state. Cyprus wasn't only close to Anatolia; it was also a threat to various Ottoman cities in modern Syria and Lebanon's borders, due to the presence of some Armenian rebels, who used the island as a base. However, the Ottomans lacked the infrastructure to prevent this traffic or even to monitor developments.

Let us note one more time that the people mentioned here were Armenian insurgents that were operating under the control of the British deep state. It is true that some of our Armenian citizens were swayed by the influence of the British deep state and chose a wrong path. However, most of our Armenian citizens at the time remained loyal to their country, the Ottoman Empire, and refused to fall for the lies of the British deep state. These decent people continued to live in Turkey in peace and safety after the foundation of the Republic of Turkey and are still a valuable part of our country. 

Regional Riots before WWI

The British deep state's protection of its interests in Eastern Anatolia hinged on a strategy of mobilizing some groups from the Armenian community against the Ottomans. This is a fact confirmed today by many Western and Armenian historians. Initially, the British deep state's efforts failed because the Armenians had no complaints about the Ottoman administration, as they had lived for centuries in peace. Therefore, many organizations set up for provocation purposes failed and disappeared in time. They became active and sought success in countries other than the Ottoman Empire.

Louise Nalbandian, a modern leading propagandist of the Armenian issue, described the goal of such rebel groups with the following words: "Agitation and Terror were needed to 'elevate the spirit of the (Armenian) people'... The people were also to be incited against their enemies and were to 'profit' from the retaliatory actions of these same enemies.... The party aimed at terrorizing the Ottoman government..." 220 In other words, a group of Armenians that the British deep state provoked into starting riots in Anatolia chose 'terror' as their method. Indeed, following the establishment of such rebel groups, riots broke out across Anatolia and consequently many innocent local people - Turks, Kurds, Assyrians and Armenians - lost their lives while Anatolia lost its peace.

Armenians were a free people that were mostly occupied with arts and trade under the Ottoman rule. They enjoyed full religious freedom, had their own churches, worshipped the way they wanted and had their monasteries where they trained their own clergy. They didn't have to serve in the military. In other words, the Ottoman Empire had provided them centuries of unprecedented peace and security. However, as the Ottoman Empire entered its decline period, a role was also cut out for them by the British deep state. Certain groups from the Armenian community were supposed to rebel against the Ottoman Empire. The British deep state was well aware that the Armenian people had no intentions of rebelling, and so it had to find a way to provoke them.

George H. Hepworth, an American journalist who travelled in East Anatolia, remembers in his memoir what the Armenians told him:

Ah, we were a happy people once. We ... had large business interests, we were contented and prosperous. But the Treaty of Berlin! And the interference of England! If Europe would let us alone, we might still have a future…221

As the Empire began to lose strength, the peaceful atmosphere began to dissipate and left in its place an environment of hostility and riots nurtured by the British deep state. The Armenians, who have never been affected by rebellious and nationalist movements up to that point, were provoked by the British deep state, which played on their different faiths and ethnicities. In order to provoke the Christian Armenian community against Muslims, the British deep state began to spread the propaganda that Armenians were being oppressed and that their riot would be the rising of the so-called 'downtrodden people'. Clashes and bloodshed would look like the natural outcome of this insidious plan.
General Mayewski, Russia's General Consul in Van and Bitlis, recalls the shameless sedition and provocation by the British deep state:

Europe had to see that Christians of Turkey – this time Armenians – were being oppressed and tyrannized by the Turks. This is what happened with Serbia and Bulgaria before and the plan was to use Armenians in the same way… Propaganda was like this: 'Only with blood, Armenians can be free. Shed blood, Europe will protect you.' They were convinced that there had to be bloodshed. They were positive that once Armenian blood was shed, Europe would rush to protect Armenians. If this hadn't been the case, there wouldn't have been this much violence. If the desire for autonomy hadn't been strong, would thousands of lives be sacrificed upon the orders of London?222

The divisive sedition policy of the British deep state became more clear and visible over time. British Prime Minister Gladstone, who took office in 1880, declared that 'to serve Armenians is to serve civilization' and hinted at the British deep state's policy when he stated that Armenians should be given independence for the East to progress and achieve enlightenment. It shouldn't be surprising that the Gladstone government gathered Armenians together, helped them organize and egged them on by promising British support for their new state.223 However, their concern was neither protecting the Armenians nor bringing 'enlightenment' to the East. The true goal was dividing the Middle East into smaller parts, hoping that it would then be easier to control.

Historian Süleyman Kocabaş described this well-known fact with the following words:

Armenian violence erupted in Eastern Anatolia. According to the foreign witness accounts, Armenian rebels were secretly communicating with the British consuls in the region. General Mayewski, who was Russia's Consul in Van, wrote about this. American journalist George H. Hepworth, who travelled to Eastern Anatolia in 1896, which marked the height of Armenian riots, also mentions about British-Armenian links in his memoir. He writes that the main reason behind the bloody confrontations between Muslims and Armenians in the region had been the Armenian rebels that came from other countries and says: "In the meantime, the revolutionists are doing what they can to make fresh outrages possible. That is their avowed purpose. They reason that if they can induce the Turks to kill more of the Armenians, themselves excepted, Europe will be forced to intervene, and then the Armenian kingdom will re-establish itself… England has eulogized them, has incited them to new effort. They steal their way into a village under cover of night, stir up those who will listen, declaring that if the people engage in open revolt the Powers will rush to their assistance."224

Indeed, the Armenian rebels in question organized a large rally in 1896 in Liverpool, where Gladstone gave another fiery speech sowing more seeds of sedition among the Armenians.225

According to William L. Langer, who was a former chairman of the history department at Harvard University, "England is more responsible for the cold-blooded murders [in Turkey] which have come near exterminating the Armenians than all other nations put together".226
Armenian riots managed and supervised by the British consuls in Anatolia reached their peak in July and August 1895. The Armenian riots that broke out in the year 1895 were as follows: September 29 in Divriği, October 2 in Trabzon, October 6 in Eğin, October 7 in Develi, October 9 in Akhisar, October 21 in Erzincan, October 25 in Gümüşhane, October 25 in Bitlis, October 26 in Bayburt, October 27 in Maraş, October 29 in Urfa, October 30 in Erzurum, November 2 in Diyarbakır, November 2 in Siverek, November 4 in Malatya, November 7 in Harput, November 9 in Arapgir, November 15 in Sivas, November 15 in Merzifon, November 16 in Antep, November 18 in Maraş, November 22 in Muş, December 3 in Kayseri and December 3 in Yozgat.