#The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

[tripadvisorbg]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[travelinmarmar]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[travelsir]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[skibansko]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[feedstarsbg]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[journalofanoldsoul]

Welcome to Austenland! (Rising Sign)

Aries Rising - Elizabeth Bennet (Pride and Prejudice): Aries Rising individuals are known for their independent spirit, assertiveness, and quick wit. Elizabeth Bennet embodies these traits with her strong-minded nature, confident demeanor, and spirited conversations.

Taurus Rising - Elinor Dashwood (Sense and Sensibility): Taurus Rising individuals are often practical, reliable, and grounded. Elinor Dashwood exemplifies these qualities through her sensible and level-headed approach to life's challenges, as well as her steadfast loyalty to her family.

Gemini Rising - Emma Woodhouse (Emma): Gemini Rising individuals are known for their wit, adaptability, and sociability. Emma Woodhouse reflects these traits with her lively personality, love for matchmaking and socializing, and her ability to engage in clever and animated conversations.

Cancer Rising - Fanny Price (Mansfield Park): Cancer Rising individuals are often nurturing, sensitive, and have a strong sense of family and home. Fanny Price embodies these qualities with her compassionate nature, deep emotional connection to her loved ones, and her appreciation for a stable and secure home environment.

Leo Rising - Catherine Morland (Northanger Abbey): Leo Rising individuals are charismatic, confident, and have a flair for the dramatic. Catherine Morland showcases these traits through her vivacious imagination, natural charm, and her ability to captivate others with her storytelling.

Virgo Rising - Anne Elliot (Persuasion): Virgo Rising individuals are typically detail-oriented, practical, and possess a keen eye for perfection. Anne Elliot reflects these traits through her conscientious nature, careful decision-making, and her attention to the details of social propriety.

Libra Rising - Jane Bennet (Pride and Prejudice): Libra Rising individuals are known for their diplomacy, charm, and sense of harmony. Jane Bennet embodies these qualities with her graceful demeanor, ability to see the best in others, and her desire for harmonious relationships.

Scorpio Rising - Marianne Dashwood (Sense and Sensibility): Scorpio Rising individuals are often intense, passionate, and have a deep emotional nature. Marianne Dashwood reflects these traits through her romantic ideals, emotional depth, and her ability to experience life's highs and lows with great intensity.

Sagittarius Rising - Mr. Knightley (Emma): Sagittarius Rising individuals are adventurous, open-minded, and have a love for exploration. Mr. Knightley embodies these traits with his well-traveled background, broad perspective on life, and his willingness to challenge Emma's misguided judgments.

Capricorn Rising - Eleanor Tilney (Northanger Abbey): Capricorn Rising individuals are often disciplined, responsible, and possess a strong sense of duty. Eleanor Tilney showcases these traits with her composed demeanor, practical approach to life, and her commitment to fulfilling her societal obligations.

Aquarius Rising - Colonel Brandon (Sense and Sensibility): Aquarius Rising individuals are typically independent, unconventional, and possess a unique perspective on the world. Colonel Brandon reflects these traits through his quiet strength, intellectual nature, and his ability to challenge societal norms.

Pisces Rising - Anne de Bourgh (Pride and Prejudice): Pisces Rising individuals are often dreamy, sensitive, and have a gentle disposition. Anne de Bourgh embodies these traits with her reserved and ethereal nature, delicate health, and her tendency to withdraw from social interactions.

Please note that the associations provided are based on general character traits and archetypes associated with each rising sign. Individual variations and interpretations can exist within each rising sign, and characters in Jane Austen's novels are complex and multifaceted, embodying various qualities beyond their rising sign traits.

Stay tune for more astro posts.

xoxo J.

[kazanlaktravel]

The Flawed Policy of Sir Henry Elliot

The current state of Turkish power in Europe can only be maintained through careful intervention and support. Unfortunately, Sir Henry Elliot’s policy has been diametrically opposed to this crucial approach. He has consistently operated under the misguided belief that Turkey, as a free and independent nation, should never face interference or restraint, regardless of the reckless actions it may pursue. This approach encourages Turkey to continue its folly, merely to uphold the notion of its freedom and independence.

Blind Support for Turkey

Sir Henry Elliot’s unwavering support for Turkey has had serious consequences. By consistently siding with the Turkish government, turning a blind eye to its faults, and dismissing any criticisms as mere Russian propaganda, he has played a part in the tragic Bulgarian massacres. As a supposed ally to Turkey, he should have taken action to prevent the mobilization of the Bashi-Bazouks, but he failed to do so. This lack of intervention raises serious questions about his commitment to protecting innocent lives Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Ignoring Evidence of Massacres

Elliot is also culpable for disregarding the numerous reports of massacres that flooded in from various sources. Despite receiving credible information from trusted individuals, such as the Rev. Dr. Long of Robert College, he chose to ignore these alarming reports. Dr. Long provided him with a collection of letters detailing the atrocities occurring in the burnt districts, but Elliot rejected this evidence, claiming it was not official enough for him to act upon.

The Misconception of Official Information

Elliot’s insistence on requiring official reports from Turkish authorities as the sole basis for action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of his role. Typically, ambassadors and diplomats value trustworthy, unofficial information when it provides a clearer picture of reality. It is widely believed that part of an ambassador’s duty is to keep their government informed about critical developments, regardless of the source. However, Sir Henry Elliot seems to have a different interpretation of his responsibilities.

The Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of Elliot’s policies are grave. By prioritizing the appearance of Turkish independence over the lives of innocent people, he has allowed atrocities to continue unchecked. His reluctance to acknowledge and act on credible reports not only undermines his position but also contributes to the suffering of countless individuals caught in the conflict.

A Call for Accountability

In light of these failures, it is essential to reevaluate the role of diplomacy in such complex situations. Leaders must understand that genuine independence does not exempt a government from scrutiny or accountability. Instead, it should prompt greater responsibility to protect and serve its citizens. Without a change in approach, the cycle of violence and tragedy will persist, perpetuating the suffering of those who rely on diplomatic intervention for their safety and well-being.

[pamporovo]

The Flawed Policy of Sir Henry Elliot

The current state of Turkish power in Europe can only be maintained through careful intervention and support. Unfortunately, Sir Henry Elliot’s policy has been diametrically opposed to this crucial approach. He has consistently operated under the misguided belief that Turkey, as a free and independent nation, should never face interference or restraint, regardless of the reckless actions it may pursue. This approach encourages Turkey to continue its folly, merely to uphold the notion of its freedom and independence.

Blind Support for Turkey

Sir Henry Elliot’s unwavering support for Turkey has had serious consequences. By consistently siding with the Turkish government, turning a blind eye to its faults, and dismissing any criticisms as mere Russian propaganda, he has played a part in the tragic Bulgarian massacres. As a supposed ally to Turkey, he should have taken action to prevent the mobilization of the Bashi-Bazouks, but he failed to do so. This lack of intervention raises serious questions about his commitment to protecting innocent lives Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Ignoring Evidence of Massacres

Elliot is also culpable for disregarding the numerous reports of massacres that flooded in from various sources. Despite receiving credible information from trusted individuals, such as the Rev. Dr. Long of Robert College, he chose to ignore these alarming reports. Dr. Long provided him with a collection of letters detailing the atrocities occurring in the burnt districts, but Elliot rejected this evidence, claiming it was not official enough for him to act upon.

The Misconception of Official Information

Elliot’s insistence on requiring official reports from Turkish authorities as the sole basis for action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of his role. Typically, ambassadors and diplomats value trustworthy, unofficial information when it provides a clearer picture of reality. It is widely believed that part of an ambassador’s duty is to keep their government informed about critical developments, regardless of the source. However, Sir Henry Elliot seems to have a different interpretation of his responsibilities.

The Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of Elliot’s policies are grave. By prioritizing the appearance of Turkish independence over the lives of innocent people, he has allowed atrocities to continue unchecked. His reluctance to acknowledge and act on credible reports not only undermines his position but also contributes to the suffering of countless individuals caught in the conflict.

A Call for Accountability

In light of these failures, it is essential to reevaluate the role of diplomacy in such complex situations. Leaders must understand that genuine independence does not exempt a government from scrutiny or accountability. Instead, it should prompt greater responsibility to protect and serve its citizens. Without a change in approach, the cycle of violence and tragedy will persist, perpetuating the suffering of those who rely on diplomatic intervention for their safety and well-being.

[skitravelling]

The Flawed Policy of Sir Henry Elliot

The current state of Turkish power in Europe can only be maintained through careful intervention and support. Unfortunately, Sir Henry Elliot’s policy has been diametrically opposed to this crucial approach. He has consistently operated under the misguided belief that Turkey, as a free and independent nation, should never face interference or restraint, regardless of the reckless actions it may pursue. This approach encourages Turkey to continue its folly, merely to uphold the notion of its freedom and independence.

Blind Support for Turkey

Sir Henry Elliot’s unwavering support for Turkey has had serious consequences. By consistently siding with the Turkish government, turning a blind eye to its faults, and dismissing any criticisms as mere Russian propaganda, he has played a part in the tragic Bulgarian massacres. As a supposed ally to Turkey, he should have taken action to prevent the mobilization of the Bashi-Bazouks, but he failed to do so. This lack of intervention raises serious questions about his commitment to protecting innocent lives Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Ignoring Evidence of Massacres

Elliot is also culpable for disregarding the numerous reports of massacres that flooded in from various sources. Despite receiving credible information from trusted individuals, such as the Rev. Dr. Long of Robert College, he chose to ignore these alarming reports. Dr. Long provided him with a collection of letters detailing the atrocities occurring in the burnt districts, but Elliot rejected this evidence, claiming it was not official enough for him to act upon.

The Misconception of Official Information

Elliot’s insistence on requiring official reports from Turkish authorities as the sole basis for action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of his role. Typically, ambassadors and diplomats value trustworthy, unofficial information when it provides a clearer picture of reality. It is widely believed that part of an ambassador’s duty is to keep their government informed about critical developments, regardless of the source. However, Sir Henry Elliot seems to have a different interpretation of his responsibilities.

The Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of Elliot’s policies are grave. By prioritizing the appearance of Turkish independence over the lives of innocent people, he has allowed atrocities to continue unchecked. His reluctance to acknowledge and act on credible reports not only undermines his position but also contributes to the suffering of countless individuals caught in the conflict.

A Call for Accountability

In light of these failures, it is essential to reevaluate the role of diplomacy in such complex situations. Leaders must understand that genuine independence does not exempt a government from scrutiny or accountability. Instead, it should prompt greater responsibility to protect and serve its citizens. Without a change in approach, the cycle of violence and tragedy will persist, perpetuating the suffering of those who rely on diplomatic intervention for their safety and well-being.

[entilzhafiresong-blog]

Angst Questions Part 1

Entilzha’s answers to the first half of angst questions from @ lady-baratheon! You’ll probably pick up something new even if you know him well; shit I’ve been him 6 years and hadda think on a bunch.

1. What’s one experience your character had that made them very afraid?Entilzha's wife Valeria died giving birth to his 7 year old daughter Ysandre, whom had a stillborn twin turned wrong, resulting in the death of her mother. Entilzha has only Ysandre and desires a male heir to carry on the 11,000 year old Firesong bloodline, but has been hesitant to remarry largely because of another pregnancy. 

2. Does your character have a deep and/or dark secret? If so, what is it?

Well, I can't give them all out, but his magical addiction being at a much higher level than most blood elves is something he generally keeps to himself, as he sips triple-infused arcwine - hints. 

3. Have they ever lost a loved one? What happened to them, and are they the same as they were before they lost them?

Every Blood Elf over age 12 will answer this as "Yes", but Entilzha was more recently shaken by his wife's loss stated in question 1. The deaths of his parents and grandmother were never recovered, and uncertainty over their fate, whether or not they were risen as undead and continue to suffer, haunted him deeply for years and prompted him to go to Icecrown to face the scourge, fearing their unwilling service. No record of them existing as Forsaken or Death Knights  turned up, and when Entilzha was back in Ashal'Thalas, he received a sense of solace during a family ancestral ritual, that leads him to believe his parents and grandmother are not actively suffering. Their loss emphasized the sense of duty he was raised with to House Firesong and Quel'Thalas, though the loss of his wife Valeria is the most recent and deepest wound Entilzha carries, if he seldom speaking of it.

4. Has your character ever been hurt or betrayed by someone they thought they could depend on? What happened?

Yes, though the IC/OOC waters are murky and as I don't recognized powerplayed events, I consider that an OOC thing. The deepest sense of betrayal Entilzha encounters is Sin'dorei whom place the Horde before Silvermoon, elves he sees as traitors, or deeply misguided at best.

5. Would they ever turn on someone they just met in order to save themselves?

If they aren't of Highborne blood, without question. To clarify that I do not advocate real life racism, as Thalassian culture is very ethnocentric and xenophobic, and Entilzha is from a conservative region of that state; Ashal'Thalas is a coastal enclave only accessible by sea or portal, and though small (only around 2k elves live there, mostly woods), his family's lands suffered only minor damage in the invasion, and Entilzha would place his seven year old daughter, his duties to Ashal'Thalas and House Firesong, and vision of Quel'Thalas, as paramount to the life of one he views as of a lesser bloodline. 

If the person in question is Thalassian the waters get murkier, also Highborne and Nightborne but Entilzha hates seeing Sin'dorei and Quel'dorei die (especially when they kill each other), and would do anything possible to avoid this outcome, but at the end of the day if 2 people walk in a room, and only one is coming out, Ent has too much left to do and people whom need him for it to be anyone else, though he'd probably just make a portal for them both, and wouldn't casually dismiss the life of a non-elf as meaningless, but  it lacks the dilemma (Side Note: Thalassian culture is based on an extremely isolated and xenophobic culture, and I strive to roleplay that accurately. 

(I take issue with people who throw around the real life term "racist" in a video game where pretty much everything is divided by race; they are biologically distinct species, and it would be fundamentally wrong to play a 350 year old elf from a conservative part Quel'Thalas, a nation he seldom left until it was sacked, as a modern politically correct cosmopolitan person, is not true to lore. Please don't mix in real life racism. I feel like this is more an issue with ally side high elves (where sadly the RP is in a sorry state with some of the worst people I've ever met taking a Pandaren shit on lore), and more accepted as just the cultural fact is is on horde side, but as people IN ths game toss around the R word and people who don't even know what a Blood Elf is may read this, had to extra clarify there). 

6. Have they ever committed a crime, or something they felt was wrong? What was it?

Crime yes; during the Ghostlands Restoration effort, Entilzha recognized the need for druidic aid, and sought out the Cenarion Circle, although Quel'Thalas had chosen not to accept their aid. This was kept low key and there were a few Kaldorei among them which violates Quel'Thalas law, though Entilzha views not accepting help restoring the Ghostlands as morally justified. He's worked undercover which naturally violates the laws of those he was spying on, and as a noble has used the range of secrets, blackmail, extortion, and the occasional murder to protect House Firesong, though having survived a number of assassination attempts himself and learning of the nasty side to nobility from his father Xarian, Entilzha views acts necessary to safeguard House Firesong and his immediate family, his daughter Ysandre and sister Salandra at present, as the most necessary, followed by what is necessary to safeguard Quel'Thalas. 

He takes no joy in suffering, but somewhat of a Machiavellian view at least as pertains to his family and his people; there are situations he would sacrifice himself. And nobody said anything when I took those bottles of arcwine, so that's not stealing, right? 

7. If your character was allowed to murder one person without any consequences, who would it be and why?

Entilzha despises those whom pit elf against elf, and holds a special hatred for orders and "leaders" whom increase division for personal power. There are a number of RP actors in Silvermoon Ent would not hesitate to kill, but they'd be replaced without their counterpart to drive the wedge; and the purge of Dalaran needs to be punished. 

Lore characters, Vereesa Windrunner and Jaina Proudmoore, and while I despise Jaina, I'd kill Vereesa because if the Silver Covenant collapses and the "exiled" High Elves lack leadership it ought make more return home as Ent desires. In terms of roleplayers, along those same lines, Silver Covenant leadership, namely Aeriyth Dawnsorrow. 

8. Does your character have any enemies? If so, who and why?

Lots. Entilzha  is vocal about opposing Silvermoon's membership in the horde, advocating reconciliation with the Quel'dorei, and restoring the Ghostlands as part of a return to full sovereignty. Given the state of the Ghostlands, this is not a priority for many in Quel'Thalas, and he considers Dominion of the Sun and others whom actively slay for the horde and widen the Sin''dorei-Quel'dorei gap for personal power as enemies of the highest order. His feelings about the equally extremist High Elven, pro-Alliance Highguard are similar, two halves each benefiting from the death of their kin, and two large and powerful enemies for one minor noble. Good thing Ent's good with wards and usually has guards. And snipers. Watch out. I mean it. 

9. Is the character a victim of abuse?

Not any more than any other Sin'dorei. His withdrawal from the loss of the Sunwell was especially bad due to his higher addiction level.

10. What were the character’s parents like? What was the affect the parents had on the character?

Entlzha's father Lord Xarian Firesong was a Magister as himself, in the tradition of House Firesong. While the Lordship of House Firesong is hereditary, the traditional leadership of Ashal'Thalas' Circle of Mages, which Xarian and most of Entilzha's Thalassian paternal ancestors held, is not, and must  be recognized through skill in the arcane. Entilzha's first century or so was extremely demanding with  full time schooling from age 7, until he was named a Magister of the Sunwell at 114. 

Xarian and Entilzha had little time together, and while the path of a leywalker is both of Entilzha's own choosing, the loss of the Sunwell, and advancements in his work, his tireless approach to the arcane and magical mysteries, was instilled by his father, as was the necessity to respect magic. Xarian enjoyed fishing, and it was one of the few things him and Entilzha, whom retains the hobby, did together, and Xarian spoke deeply of his sense of duty to the people of Ashal'Thalas, speaking of them as extended family with an obligation to protect, as well as the duty to maintain both House Firesong's ancient bloodline and governance of Ashal'Thalas, and to do what is necessary. Entilzha's style as Lord Arcanist heavily mimics his father whom was his earliest role model for both, and Xarian's deep sense of duty to his House and people and dedication to the arcane live on through Entilzha. 

Entilzha's mother, Ranger-Captain Ariella Firesong, bucked typical tradition in joining the Farstriders, and not taking the Sun Crown, the Matriarchal head of House Firesong and governess of the capital of Ashal'Thalas, Bal'adeni. Entilzha's grandmother, Sun Matriarch Sarenthia Firesong, held the crown until she was slain with Lord Xarian, whom were at the Sanctum of the Moon when the invasion struck. As a child, Entilzha was fascinated by his mother, whom made time for her son and daughter, but as a Farstrider, a Ranger-Lt. for most of Entilzha's life, she was away for long stretches, and as the sense of duty to House Firesong sunk into Entilzha, the sense that his mother was not fulfilling hers to gallivant in the forest while his grandmother had handled the endless diplomacy and noble politics for over four centuries by the time of her death.

Sarenthia pushed Entilzha's sister Salandra to be prepared for the Sun Crown, and while Salandra did much of the actual legwork by the time of the invasion, the crown was not passed until after, likely for political reasons, as the Sun Crown often is donned by a Lord's wife, and its unavailability would have dampened Entilzha's marriage prospects. By tradition, his mother would have passed the crown at Entilzha's wedding or upon the birth of his first child, though the division of powers in House Firesong grants substantial powers to the Sun Matriarch, powers a younger sister whom had prepared for centuries and held only briefly, may not be inclined to part with, and aside from death, the crown is passed only by will, and has been retained over convention in past situations. 

Entilzha has since given his mother much thought, and realized that she served House Firesong and Quel'Thalas in her own way. As he came to understand that the bond Rangers share with nature is as profound, perhaps even more than, his own arcane gifts, and that in pre-invasion Quel'Thalas, Ariella had no reason to believe Salandra would not grow up to succeed her, and do so likely far better than a woman who yearned to be outdoors, not at endless balls and formal affairs. 

Salandra was more than prepared for the crown, as her current strength shows, and Ariella serving as a Farstrider meant much to the Emberstriders, the Rangers of Ashal'Thalas, whom generally serve a period among the Farstriders before returning to guard Ashal'Thalas, as the central defensive force of the pre-invasion era, were often overpowered by the towering Dal'felo "Firestar" Tower, and the accolade which went to the magi of Ashal'Thalas, while the narrow sea border with the Amani peninsula was kept safe by the Rangers. After his parents death, Entilzha read one her mother's diary, and her connection to the the Emberstriders meant much to her and to them. 

Ariella is the parent Entilzha was most concerned about, as she fell near Sylvanas, as he was hold, and what became of her any many of her rangers is well known. He's since ruled out her existence as a Dark Ranger, and with ancestral guidance, has a sense she's at peace, though looking back at his mother, and at the balance between arcane and nature Thas'alah maintained, very much wishes he could speak with her, as he saw her little in the decades prior to the invasion. 

11. What are your character’s coping mechanisms?

Spellweaving. Entilzha will poke at leylines and experiment with runes and formations for days on end to keep himself busy. He focuses in leylines, wards, illusions, and portals, each aspects of the arcane that are mercilessly unforgiving, and demand full concentration, pushing aside what was there. Reading can fill such a role, though not as effectively as the meditation Entilzha requires several hours per day to maintain inner harmony with his high arcane levels. 

He smokes thistle from a hookah and may consume more arcwine than is the norm if under much stress, but recognizing his arcane addiction tries to avoid that route, since assuming the Lordship while Entilzha was only briefly married before Valeria fell, he has had at least one consort in the Dal'felo Spire more often than not. 

Though if something is bothering Entilzha, the best recipe is the company of the few elves he truly trusts, his guard captain Israai, Jandissa, scribe and consort, and Morgane Devaux, a Nightborne arcanist Entilzha met during the Suramar Campaign, helping her escape from her Felborne-turned brother, and regain her family regalia. Morgane is older than Entilzha by much; she was born in Zin-Azshari and while her beauty and intellect fascinates him, he doesn't view Morgane in a romantic light, but she's come to be his closest and most trusted friend, likely the first elf he'd go to. 

12. Do they like to suffer? Like to see other people suffering?

Entilzha says quite plainly that to suffer is to be Sin'dorei, accepting such as the shared sacrifice of his people. The enemies mentioned previously, and some others Entilzha would shed no tears seeing suffer, though as retribution for their deeds he views as evil or unjust; Entilzha does not enjoy suffering, received or given, and when he's handed down death sentences, only three occasions, he's used an overpowered spell to kill them virtually instantly each time. He will however do what is needed to make a captive share what he needs to know. Lord Firesong is proficient at mental probes, but such is an imperfect art, and torturing captive foes, last practiced on any scale when House Firesong took captives early in the Iron Horde invasion, deeply confused and seeking answers. He got his answers, but as a means to an end. 

13. What does it take to make your character cry?

Entilzha last cried when his wife Valeria died, doing so as he held her dying hand. He typically hides his emotions, especially those that may be perceived as weakness, having learned from his father that a Lord cannot appear weak or he will be weak, is more likely to react to sadness either via anger or isolation. He would certainly cry if his seven year old daughter Ysandre died, though in such a tragedy would likely appear stoic and only further hardened in public, perhaps expressing such deep feelings in private.

14. What is your character’s biggest relationship flaw? Has this flaw destroyed relationships for them before?

I'm not sure if this is a flaw or just a preference, and may well stem from the only true love he'd had, having known and grown close to Valeria while she mended House Firesong's wounded in the Ghostlands Campaign, he grew comfortable having her at his side, completed, and struggles with relationships that involve prolonged periods of time apart. Since Valeria, Entilzha would not involve himself to another without a time commitment, if not on the level of Valeria, though being in a relationship and alone most nights, Entilzha finds disheartening, a sign of rejection if indefinite. He understands duty well, and can certainly love someone whose time is limited, as his own is, but Entilzha would never claim being a Magister more important than one he wanted to marry; they occupy two entirely different spheres, and as a relationship awakens the feelings of loss Entilzha went through with Valeria, he found attempting a relationship with a Farstrider and then an Argent cleric, both elegant Sin'dorei, but with so little time, his sense of rejection grew stronger. This has impacted Entilzha but I am not sure if it's good or bad, as he wants someone who will be there for himself and his daughter, doesn't require that they be with him all the time, but that a partner share the sense of priority he does. Entilzha doesn't view wanting someone whom makes being an active part of his life and Ysandre's as a negative, but intimacy reopens wounds from Valeria, wounds loneliness does not comfort. 

15. What is their biggest fear? What in general scares them? How do they act when they’re scared?

Entilzha's biggest fear is losing his daughter Ysandre, followed by the possibility he will never love another close to as he did Valeria. Pragmatically, he fears the Undercity, with their population slowing going insane, plague weapons. He had feared that the culture of Quel'Thalas would erode from such unprecedented and prolonged contact with "savage" races, but sees the Sin'dorei maintaining their pride, and does believe they will be free of the horde while he lives.

[tripadvisorbg]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[travelinmarmar]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[travelsir]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[skibansko]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[skibansko]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.

[skibansko]

The Duty of Diplomacy A Misguided Approach

Sir Henry Elliot’s role as an ambassador should have been to advocate for the truth and defend human rights, yet he chose to defend the Turkish government unconditionally, ignoring their atrocities. His unwavering support for the Turks blinded him to the suffering of countless individuals. This was a critical failure, especially given the plethora of accurate information available from various sources.

Overlooked Reports from Consuls

Despite his bias, there were still numerous other sources of information available to him. French, German, Austrian, Greek, and Russian Consuls provided accurate weekly reports detailing the situation on the ground. These reports, which Elliot could have accessed, painted a grim picture of the ongoing atrocities. Additionally, German railway officials, who lived near the burning villages and could smell the rotting bodies, submitted their own observations. Yet, Elliot dismissed these reports, believing that they were all part of a Russian conspiracy Private Bulgaria Tours Yachting.

Dismissal of Credible Evidence

Elliot’s skepticism extended even to the reports from American missionaries. He regarded the accounts from these various diplomats and officials as worthless, dismissing them based solely on his unfounded belief that they were all in the pay of Russia. He also received a few reports from Mr. Dupuis, the Consul at Adrianople, which he deemed exaggerated for reasons he never clarified. Instead of investigating these claims further, he opted to ignore them altogether.

Misguided Assurance from the Turkish Porte

In a misguided attempt to confirm his biases, Elliot sent his dragoman to the Porte to inquire about the situation. The dragoman returned with assurances that the Turks were treating the Bulgarians with kindness, portraying them as victims rather than aggressors. Accepting this narrative without question, Elliot smiled and proclaimed, “I knew it,” choosing not to report on the brutal realities that contradicted this portrayal.

The Dangers of Exaggeration Claims

Elliot’s actions, particularly his assertion that the reports of atrocities were exaggerated, demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability. He recklessly claimed that the Bulgarians had committed atrocities equal to those of the Turks, despite having no evidence to support such a statement. By prioritizing a narrative that absolved the Turkish government, he dismissed the overwhelming evidence of suffering among the Bulgarian population.

A Call for Accountability

If Sir Henry Elliot can express indignation over alleged exaggerations while ignoring the countless victims—helpless women and innocent children whose remains litter the fields of Bulgaria—he has failed in his duty as an ambassador. Such indifference is unworthy of a representative of a Christian Queen and a generous people. It is imperative that those in positions of power prioritize truth and justice over political alliances, for the consequences of neglect can lead to unimaginable suffering.