As newcomer to this forum, and one who lives in Turkey, I realize buying into this topic could make me unpopular with some members. However, through extensive research on Australian and Allied prisoners of war in Turkey during the First World War, I feel I have something to contribute.
First off, I would say that Penn44’s raising of this issue was not a stupid question. Many Allied soldiers believed claims that they would be raped by Turkish soldiers if captured, meaning that this issue is relevant.
Secondly I would say that, despite what Lawrence may have written, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support his statement that “The Ottoman Turks were infamous for inflicting it throughout the Great War on captured enemy troops, beating and gang raping enemy officers often as a matter of due course”.
Having read hundreds of letters by Australian POWs in Turkey (and I do mean hundreds) as well as diaries, memoirs and unpublished documents, along with official accounts and published memoirs, I have found no evidence of any form of systematic sexual assult, either at the time of capture or while in prison camps.
However, I do have evidence that definitely shows that some (and I stress some) Allied prisoners were abused while in captivity. A senior Turkish officer at the camp located at Afyonkarahissar was repeatedly referred to in regard to these practices.
At the same time, I also have less clearly defined allegations of consenting homosexual practices between British officers in the camp, as well as the use of opium by Allied officers, including Australians (as an aside, Afyion means opium in Turkish and the region is one of the largest producers of raw opium for the legal medicinal market).
As I said, I have written evidence from POWs of homosexual abuse while in captivity. It was not in the interests of these soldiers to fabricate these accounts but a number did write that they had been abused. I should also say before anyone has a go at me that many years ago I also had the privilege to interview the last surviving Australian who had been a POW in Ottoman Turkey and he also confirmed that there had been instances of abuse, though he had not experienced it but had known and seen men who had.
As another note, refuting what Lawrence wrote, I have found no evidence whatsoever that any Australian officer was abused, indeed captured officers were almost without exception treated well and had a far better time of it as prisoners than enlisted men.
Before the complaints start, I want to say that what I have written is provable, and is not intended to be an insult to Turkey, Turks, the Turkish armed forces or Turkish soldiers. What it is is an objective look at an issue. Homosexuality exists in all societies, including modern Turkey where there are a number of registered non-governmental organisations representing the active gay and lesbian community in this country and where homosexuality is legal.
The fact that there were isolated incidents of homosexual abuses committed on Allied POWs should not be cause for insults to be hurled around or for insult to be taken. As I said, these were isolated incidents, not a systematic activity and surely not a policy that was applied by authorities. The fact that the officer I referred to was, according to Allied accounts, court marshalled after the war by the Ottoman military for his treatment of prisoners, both supports the claims of abuse and the fact that Turkish authorities did not condone it. We are discussing the actions of a few men out of an force of hundreds of thousands.
I would be sorry to think that there may be some members of this forum who take offence at what I have written. However, I thought it worth while contributing the above information in the hope it would both expand the knowledge of those taking part in this discussion and, just maybe, taking a little heat out of the debate.
Cheers
Bill Sellars
Homosexual Acts in the Turkish Army
-
Chris Dale
- Host - German Colonies
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 15:48
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Actually, my question was in regards to consensual and non-consensual homosexial acts between Turkish soldiers, not between Turks and captured POWs, but this is an interesting question as well.
My question also dealt with the frequency of homosexual acts among basically heterosexual Turkish males, and not with homosexual Turks.
Penn44
.
My question also dealt with the frequency of homosexual acts among basically heterosexual Turkish males, and not with homosexual Turks.
Penn44
.
Hi Penn44,
yes I did understand your question, though I was as much responding to other postings as to yours. As to your query, I don't have any direct knowledge though as I said in my previous posting, there were allegations of Allied officers engaging in homosexual activity while prisoners of war, though whether these men were homosexual or frustrated heterosexuals seeking an outlet I could not say.
Cheers
Bill
yes I did understand your question, though I was as much responding to other postings as to yours. As to your query, I don't have any direct knowledge though as I said in my previous posting, there were allegations of Allied officers engaging in homosexual activity while prisoners of war, though whether these men were homosexual or frustrated heterosexuals seeking an outlet I could not say.
Cheers
Bill
The subject of homosexual acts within POW camps occasionally comes up in books on POWs. Often the POW will report that after liberation he was sometimes asked whether men detained in a POW camp engage in homosexual acts because they are denied outlets to women. The POWs respond that their thoughts were focused on food because they were hungry and not on sex [Maslow's heirarchy of needs]. Out of the numerous POW books and articles that I have read over the years, I have encountered only one account of homosexual activity between POWs. In the case in question, the British MOC (Man of Confidence) of the Stalag reportedly asked the German commandant to transfer one of the two men in order to stop the activity that was occuring behind the bathhouse.
Because not all cultures will engage in homosexual acts in the absence of women in appreciable levels, I believe the cause in the Turkish situation is, as Robert Plant reports, the interaction of cultural and situational factors at that time.
Penn44
.
Because not all cultures will engage in homosexual acts in the absence of women in appreciable levels, I believe the cause in the Turkish situation is, as Robert Plant reports, the interaction of cultural and situational factors at that time.
Penn44
.
-
Tosun Saral
- Member
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 20:32
- Location: Ankara/Turkey
- Contact:
You protest is noted.
Let's look what's been presented so far:
(1)Homosexuality in the Turkish Army was most likely the same as in every other army.Contrary to some claims I think it is generally accepted that 1% of the population is fully homosexual.
(2)Lawrence's claims of rape were fiction.
(3)The disgraceful claim that "the Ottoman Turks were infamous for inflicting it throughout the Great War on captured enemy troops, beating and gang raping enemy officers often as a matter of due course. Prisons and garrisons often had personnel who specialized in this abuse, although there was nothing homosexual about it" has been disproven.
Individual cases did occur but this was not condoned by the higher ups nor did they set up such a system.Sexual criminals and those abusing their powers occur in all armies(wasn't it a Marine Colonel caught in an act of buggery at Guadalcanal with a sailor?)
(4)Like most cultures the nobility did engage in decadent practices(didn't Leonidas refer to the Athenians as 'boylovers"?) but whether this custom extended to the common people has not been established.
(5)From what I understand claims are made that pedestary is common among the Arabs.I do not know if this claim is valid.I do not know if this is seen as a tribal practise.I have seen no reference to this practice in more conservative Anatolia,nor in the Balkans when under Ottoman rule.Arab recruits were in the Ottoman Army,even Arab regiments,but strict Ottoman military discipline made them good troops.
(6)POW camp detention,with the abscense of women,can lead to homosexual acts.
Further from what I understand the Western press smeared the Ottomans as "wanton and leacherous" during the troubles in the Balkans that started from the 1880s.Rapes,murders were blamed on the Turks but it appears all sides had their criminals that did these acts.Deviant acts against males (and animals) were also expressed but it appears hearsay.Meanwhile in the Crimean War days they were presented as the brave,stoic Turk.
I have seen no Turkish conscript accounts that mention severe bastardisation nor sexual assault against new recruits.In fact brothels were used by the Turks just as any army.The incidence of VD was only brought down with German medical help from 1900 onwards.We seem to forget in modern days that the fear of disease stifled sexual exploits in years past.
No German accounts mention this practise.
Turkey is still the only NATO country that views homosexuality a psychological disorder and outlaws such people from its armed forces.I think we are talking about a very conservative society here.
Let's look what's been presented so far:
(1)Homosexuality in the Turkish Army was most likely the same as in every other army.Contrary to some claims I think it is generally accepted that 1% of the population is fully homosexual.
(2)Lawrence's claims of rape were fiction.
(3)The disgraceful claim that "the Ottoman Turks were infamous for inflicting it throughout the Great War on captured enemy troops, beating and gang raping enemy officers often as a matter of due course. Prisons and garrisons often had personnel who specialized in this abuse, although there was nothing homosexual about it" has been disproven.
Individual cases did occur but this was not condoned by the higher ups nor did they set up such a system.Sexual criminals and those abusing their powers occur in all armies(wasn't it a Marine Colonel caught in an act of buggery at Guadalcanal with a sailor?)
(4)Like most cultures the nobility did engage in decadent practices(didn't Leonidas refer to the Athenians as 'boylovers"?) but whether this custom extended to the common people has not been established.
(5)From what I understand claims are made that pedestary is common among the Arabs.I do not know if this claim is valid.I do not know if this is seen as a tribal practise.I have seen no reference to this practice in more conservative Anatolia,nor in the Balkans when under Ottoman rule.Arab recruits were in the Ottoman Army,even Arab regiments,but strict Ottoman military discipline made them good troops.
(6)POW camp detention,with the abscense of women,can lead to homosexual acts.
Further from what I understand the Western press smeared the Ottomans as "wanton and leacherous" during the troubles in the Balkans that started from the 1880s.Rapes,murders were blamed on the Turks but it appears all sides had their criminals that did these acts.Deviant acts against males (and animals) were also expressed but it appears hearsay.Meanwhile in the Crimean War days they were presented as the brave,stoic Turk.
I have seen no Turkish conscript accounts that mention severe bastardisation nor sexual assault against new recruits.In fact brothels were used by the Turks just as any army.The incidence of VD was only brought down with German medical help from 1900 onwards.We seem to forget in modern days that the fear of disease stifled sexual exploits in years past.
No German accounts mention this practise.
Turkey is still the only NATO country that views homosexuality a psychological disorder and outlaws such people from its armed forces.I think we are talking about a very conservative society here.
-
phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Agree,the decision was made not to locked this topic etc as it was a legitimate inquiry.
For example similar discussions about the Germans raping there way through Belgium in 1914 have proven this claim to be false.
I still think a lot of these claims arise from the days of the Gladstone press. i.e the Turks as a heathen,uncivilised,leacherous lot.It would be viewed as rascist these days.
I think the common Anatolian peaseant,which made up the backbone of the Ottoman army,had more things to worry about than adventures of the flesh.Likewise what may have been common cultural practises in other Middle Eastern peoples was not prevalent in Turkey.For example female circumcision was unheard of.
For example similar discussions about the Germans raping there way through Belgium in 1914 have proven this claim to be false.
I still think a lot of these claims arise from the days of the Gladstone press. i.e the Turks as a heathen,uncivilised,leacherous lot.It would be viewed as rascist these days.
I think the common Anatolian peaseant,which made up the backbone of the Ottoman army,had more things to worry about than adventures of the flesh.Likewise what may have been common cultural practises in other Middle Eastern peoples was not prevalent in Turkey.For example female circumcision was unheard of.
Last edited by Peter H on 07 Feb 2008, 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
-
phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
I put this topic in the too hard basket.It reminds me of the stories that certain Balkan peoples get the father's to deflower their virgin daughters.Where's the proof?
Tasmanians do inbreed though don't they?
And Kiwis like sheep.
(the only recorded military case of bestiality in New Zealand in WW2 was when a US Marine was caught with a ewe).
Tasmanians do inbreed though don't they?
And Kiwis like sheep.
(the only recorded military case of bestiality in New Zealand in WW2 was when a US Marine was caught with a ewe).
-
phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
