Turkish atrocities

[Guest redrum]

This may have been answered before but were any Turkish commanders or such ever tried after the war for the atrocities perpetrated against surrendered British/Anzac soldiers? The aftermath at KUT being just one incident.

[Paul Hodges]

The short answer is Yes, but not many.

The long answer is:

Turkey, at the outset of dealing with the war crimes issue, appeared to offer high chances of resolution, with lots of co-operation and quite some impetus from its rulers (both from Sultan Mehemet VI after the Mudros armistice of October 1918 and the new grand vizier, his brother-in-law, Damad Ferid). There was also stronger British ire at the Turkish war record, and much more diplomatic and geo-political interest for them than had been the case in Germany. Early on the British were vigorous in pursuing those responsible for prisoner camp mistreatment. Some prosecution successes were achieved but most of the accused were absent; in fact, German assistance for their former allies by providing a safe haven and destroying files is one of their least commendable actions in the post-war period and has only recently been properly described (Dadrian’s German Complicity in the Armenian Genocide). The first military tribunal’s severe verdict in April 1919 impressed all observers. General Mustapha Nazim Pasha convicted Kemal Bay and Major Tevik Bey, former officials in the Yozgat Sanjak, of ordering robbery and murder of Armenians, and sentenced them to 15 years hard labour and hanging (carried out four days later) respectively. Popular protest, the creation of martyrdom around Bey, Mustapha Kemal's nationalist resistance in Angora and the Allies provocatively allowing Greece to occupy (harshly) Smyrna, upset Ferid’s plans. Some angry prison officials freed 41 alleged war criminals, so Britain took 67 off to Malta; the trial of 20 Young Turk leaders, the most important absent, accomplished little, with many of the trials resulting in no verdicts. The convictions of former Young Turks had more symbolic than practical value; only Musa Kiazim was present to receive 15 years hard labour; 5 received death sentences in absentia. Lesser figures’ court-martials continued sporadically for another year with few punished, except for Anvi Bey, hanged on July 29th 1920. The Allies were even less successful than the Turkish authorities though, failing to find the wherewithal or coalition necessary to create laws and courts to prosecute perpetrators of Armenian genocide. The British persevered but the increasingly political nature of their arrests (esp. during the Constaninople occupation, March 1920) and Turkish nationalists’ violent intransigence respectively discredited and disabled their schemes. Evidence difficulties sank the compromise trial of eight mistreaters of prisoners agreed with the nationalists in January 1921. Britain’s increasingly political arrests and the gradual collapse of the Sultan’s authority in face of nationalism brought the process to an unedifying end. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention war crimes and the last suspect, Lieutenant Mohammed Rafki, was released from an Indian prison in November 1923, to the disappointment of some in Britain. Armenian assassination squads now replaced trials.

Main source: James F. Willis Prologue to Nuremberg: The Politics and Diplomacy of Punishing War Criminals of the First World War(Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut & London, 1982)

[Guest Pete Wood]

Thank you for this, Paul.

I did not know of the existence of this book.

I presume you have a copy? Does it mention only the 'top brass,' with regard to war crimes, or does it mention more lowly defendants....??

[Paul Hodges]

Don't own but do have extensive notes from a library copy!

It does cover more lowly defendents but only covers the post-war 'international' trials. For Germany, it has now been superceded by an enormous German tome (Hankel's Die Leipziger Prozesse) which I have recently ploughed through. This is as near as damn it definitive but I don't agree with all his interpretations and Willis remains a little better on the politics and diplomatic wranglings. Also Willis does cover Turkey (as above) & Bulgaria briefly.

I am hoping to have an article on international reactions to the war crimes trials published soon in the European Review of History. Still a lot of work to be done in this area - particularly the 'lesser' court-martials during and after the war.

Xavier Rousseaux & Laurence Ypersele at the Louvain University have done some fascinating work on Belgium 1918-21 which should shortly be published and will show the way.

[Guest Pete Wood]

I do hope you will let us see some of this article, once it has been published.

It sounds like a fascinating subject!

[enoch beard]

i always though the majority of men at kut were indian army?

enoch

[Guest stevenbec]

No mate,

There were a number of British units there.

Can I also mention the Australian half Flight attach to the RFC.

Many of these men got away but part of the unit were captured.

Many did while in Turkish captivity die from illness and abuse. Few came home at the end of the war.

Of cause was Turkey a signarey to the G Convention?

Did they act as Japan did in WWII because it did not?

S.B

[enoch beard]

steven,

the 6th poona division

2nd dorsets

20th d.c.o infantry(brownlow punjabi)

104th wellesley's rifles

117th mahrattas

1st ox and bucks l.i.

22nd punjabis

103rd mahratta l.i.

119th infantry

2nd norfolks

7th duke of connaughts own rajputs

110th mahratta l.i.

120th rajputana inf

would you not say the majority of the men was indian!

enoch

[Guest stevenbec]

Sorry Mate,

My mistake in reading your post. I missed took the word Majority.

S.B

[enoch beard]

steve, we all make mistakes, my parents should know

enoch

[Andrew Smith]

Post war in Australia there was an article blasting Townsend, I found it among my Great Uncle William Lord's letters home. William was in the Half Flight and was captured at Kut and died from illness sometime in 1916.

I found this interesting because Australian newspapers circa 1919 never blasted any British general.

Regards,

Andrew

[Guest bonza]

would you not say the majority of the men was indian!

enoch

.?