Homosexual Acts in the Turkish Army

Discussions on the final era of the Ottoman Empire, from the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 until the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Homosexual Acts in the Turkish Army

#1

Post by Penn44 » 03 Feb 2008, 18:46

I recently read Robert Plant's The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homsexuality. In it, on pages 146-7, Plant writes:
The armed forces had also to grapple with the behavior of non-German fighting men recruited after 1942. These foreign volunteers --- among them Turks, Azerbaijanis, Cossacks, Armenians, Turkomans, Arabs, Belgians, and Frenchmen --- had often grown up in cultures whose traditions permitted occasional homosexual acts, especially when young men had no access to women.
I have encountered other references to homosexuality in the Turkish army, for example, in T,E Lawrence's The Seven Pillars of Wisdom in which he mentions the sexual abuse of Turkish soldiers by their officers. There is also a suggestion that diseases were transmitted as a result.

How prevalent was homosexual acts in the Turkish army?

Penn44

.

User avatar
Bill Woerlee
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 06 Dec 2006, 05:52
Location: Canberra

#2

Post by Bill Woerlee » 04 Feb 2008, 01:54

Penn44

You might find that homosexuality in the Turkish Army was the same as in every other army. Sadly most people wish to suppress this information.

Let me illustrate one such occasion. I was asked by Digger Magazine to present an article on this very issue. The finished article was suppressed on the grounds that it might offend some people. Here is the article:

The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Bill Woerlee

In the Edwardian era, when sexual issues were rarely discussed, even less was written to provide records of these attitudes. Society considered some practices, like homosexuality, as so heinous that imprisonment was the only answer. For survival in a hostile environment and in an effort to communicate their desires with each other, men invented various code words. The description of being “earnest”, as popularised by Oscar Wilde in his play “The Importance of Being Ernest”, had similar cache then as the word “gay” has now. “Confirmed bachelor” was another euphemism. Apart from a few sensational scandals, no one knew the real extent of this hidden behaviour.

When the AIF began recruiting men, no one addressed the issue of homosexuality or set out a policy to deal with its implications. To the average earnest man, the lure of an all-male institution would have been irresistible. There is every indication that such men would have been over represented within the AIF in relation to the broader community. Despite social disapproval, very few men were punished for homosexual behaviour, which seems to indicate an attitude of tolerance in the AIF so long as the conduct was not obvious. The key to understanding this attitude was embodied in the Empire’s acceptance of the British Generalissimo, Lord Kitchener, a homosexual with an entourage of like-minded men. Turning a “blind eye” seemed the only sane policy.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2069 ... aa35zw.jpg

For those few who were detected, action was swift. Two cases in the Light Horse, that of Pte Charles Hendrick, 9th LHR and Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall of the 7th LHR, outline the consequences of being noticed. Both were discharged from the AIF for the same reason but their motivations were entirely different.

Pte Charles Hendrick came from Wellington, New Zealand. He signed up for service in the 9th LHR on 14 December 1914 with the 1st Reinforcements. As a former stockman, he was short and wiry in build. His swarthy appearance was a result of miscegenation. During attestation, apart from all the usual detail, the medical examiner also noted a tattoo on his left buttock.

Hendrick left Melbourne for Egypt on 6 February 1915 with the "Surada". While military life in Egypt was always demanding, at Mena Camp and then Heliopolis, duties were usually over by early afternoon. Ample leave for the balance of the day was always available and only denied if the man was assigned to specific camp duties. For Hendrick, the offerings of Egypt became so spellbinding that he never wanted to leave. With the forced departure from Alexandria with the 9th LHR to take part in the Peninsular Campaign at Anzac, Hendrick disappeared. He hid around all the seedy bars and hotels of Alexandria as a vagrant to avoid capture. His task was not too difficult as there was a vigorous black market trade in fake identity papers for deserters. It took until 13 June and a tip-off for the Provos to find and arrest him. Within days he was put on board a ship for Anzac where he arrived on 16 June accompanied by 21 days’ loss of pay and 10 days, No 2 Field Punishment, for his pains. At Anzac, Hendrick began to serve out his sentence. Unhappy with his circumstances, a couple days later Hendrick did something so rash on 18 June that it earned him 21 days, No 1 Field Punishment, a rarity for the AIF.

The Turkish attack on 30 June 1915 was enough for Hendrick. For him, Idriess summed up Anzac as: “Of all the bastards of places this is the greatest bastard in the world.” Hendrick wanted out from Anzac. He had tried nearly everything but still remained. One last attempt. He had to go for the big one. On 1 July, Hendrick offered to sodomise another soldier in the trenches. It was an action that brought the reward of a quick arrest by the Brigade police, a rapid transfer to Alexandria on 7 July, and there, held in detention until taken under guard to Australia, where he was immediately discharged on the day of his arrival. For Hendrick, the war was over. The Army gave the bureaucratic equivalent of “flipping the bird” by stripping Hendrick of any medal entitlements despite having served, however unwillingly, in a declared war zone for two weeks.

http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... aa54ag.jpg

A few years later, on 25 October 1918, Hendrick rejoined the AIF. The war ended before he could serve overseas again. Hendrick was not beyond lying to the authorities. Upon signing the Attestation Papers in 1914, he put his age as being 35 and yet in 1918 claimed his age was 36, a truly miraculous feat. While Hendrick may have been discharged because of “gross indecency”, the nature of his behaviour indicates it was less a consequence of any lifestyle choice and more a motivation to leave Gallipoli by any means possible provided that it did not include sustaining hideous wounds or dying.

The case of Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall from the 7th LHR is quantifiably different from Hendrick. Marshall was a 21 year old dealer from Ryde when he joined up with the 7th LHR on 24 April 1917. He stood at 1.63m and weighed 60kg, a thin man with blue eyes and light brown hair. It would also be fair to say that while Marshall might have been an enthusiastic soldier he could not be described as one of Australia’s finest. He took a long time to be considered as an efficient soldier, indeed, it took seven months. The cohort in which he signed up with at the RAS Showgrounds in Sydney had already gone to Egypt with the 31st Reinforcements. By November he was considered to be efficient enough to be taken into the 7th LHR with the 34th Reinforcements.

When he arrived in Egypt, he spent a month at the Reinforcements camp before being transferred to the 2nd LH Bde Training Regiment. He stayed there for two weeks, when at the end of March 1918, he received an attachment to the Army’s version of the no hoper squad, the Railway Construction Unit. It was hoped that by a regime of hard work and rough company, Marshall might be transformed from a “Mummy’s Boy” into a man. A month of manly struggle later brought on a case of tonsillitis, which resulted in the hospitalisation of Marshall for over two months. After another spell in the Training Regiment, Marshall finally joined the 7th LHR on 9 July 1918, some 15 months after he enlisted.

http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... aa34pf.jpg

If Marshall thought he was a welcome figure, he soon found otherwise. Within three days he was sent off for yet more training, this time a month. He was a man who appeared to need a great deal of training. When Marshall returned to Richon de Zion, no more training schools prepared to take him on as a student. Reluctantly, the 7th LHR admitted him into its ranks. Finally Marshall was set to work albeit with the supporting echelon at Richon de Zion where the ANZAC Mounted Division’s headquarters was located, rather than with the Regiment proper which at the resting at Bethlehem.

Within a week, Marshall had already found that there was a vibrant homosexual community at Richon de Zion. He participated in all its activities with the vigour of an enthusiastic young man. On the night of 24 July 1918, his enthusiastic participation came to the notice of the authorities when the Divisional Police caught him in the act of sodomising one of the local lads. Marshall was arrested. No one knew what to do with him. Chauvel interviewed Marshall and concluded that a trial would do no one any good. The last thing Chauvel needed was a scandal blowing up right at the moment when he was planning for the September break out. To avoid any inconvenience, Marshall was placed under guard, sent to Egypt and then Australia, where he was discharged on 3 October 1918. Unlike Hendrick, Marshall received his full medal entitlements.

http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... aa49ok.jpg

In both these cases the men were returned to Australia and discharged on landing at the Military District of embarkation. They faced no trial, just rapid removal from the Army. If there was a policy on handling the problems of homosexuality in the AIF, it was to silently rid the institution of any known activity. The AIF appears not to have had the ability to cope with the fallout that might have arisen due to any Wilde like trial. It would appear as though there was very real ambivalence in the senior ranks towards this issue. No one really knew what actions to take due to the lack of official policy. Sending them home appeared to be the safest solution.

For the AIF, an absence of a formal policy meant doing nothing so long as no one said or did anything to bring homosexuality to the notice of the authorities. It was a policy that the Army took into this century some 90 years later. The legal barriers may be down but this issue is still controversial within the Army, with little progressing beyond Hendrick and Marshall. Maybe it is time for acceptance of social realities and some creative thinking and within the Army. It is a subject that people ignore at their peril.
Let me know if the contents offended you.

I never did get the inclination to write about the use of hashish in the Australian Light Horse as they battled against the Turks. Like homosexuality, that never happened either - if you believe the fantasy.

As for Lawrence, you can discount his discredited commentary as nothing more than the sexual fantasy of a self confessed flagellate. The 4 page vignette in 7POW is nothing more than his own imagination. Indeed 7POW is little more than a historical work of fiction loosely based upon some facts. In the same genre at Catherine Cookson and Georgette Heyer.

I hope this helps you a little in your search.

Cheers

Bill


User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#3

Post by Peter H » 04 Feb 2008, 04:16

Hirschfeld's Sexual History of the World War detailing the sexual excesses of 1914-1918 can be found here:

http://eric.stamen.com/ww1/sexualhistory/

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#4

Post by Penn44 » 04 Feb 2008, 08:27

Bill Woerlee wrote:Penn44

You might find that homosexuality in the Turkish Army was the same as in every other army. Sadly most people wish to suppress this information.
Bill
I am quite aware of homosexuality across cultures and across history.

However, my question dealt with homosexual acts, not homosexuality. In the absence of women, some predominantly heterosexual males will engage in homosexual acts, but are not homosexual in orientation. Some cultures were more relaxed (permissive) about it at different times in their history.

My curiosity regarding this issue first arose in 2005 when I read T.E. Lawrence's The Seven Pillars of Wisdom in which claims were made. Of special concern is Lawrence's suggestion that the incidents between officers and enlisted was not consensual. My recent reading of Robert Plant's The Pink Triangle and the claims made in it prompted me to finally ask this question.

Penn44

.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#5

Post by Peter H » 04 Feb 2008, 11:46

I guess we are also talking about the power of a dominate one over an inferior:


This as well:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/telawrence.htm
Rape in time of war is age old, most people are aware of the suffering of woman and girls during hostilities; however since ancient times it has been a weapon of war used against men. The word itself is derived from the Latin rapere meaning to steal, seize or carry away. In the military context it was a means of stealing a man's honour, a victorious soldier emasculating a vanquished foe in the belief that by forcibly penetrating him he lost his manhood.

This indignity was more often inflicted on members of the officer class in the belief it robbed them of their authority as a leader of men, sometimes resulting in the victims suicide. Gang rape was also considered a means of punishment in some cultures, the Romans, Persians, Ottomans and other societies practiced it.

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.

The Turkish soldiers perpetrating this war crime certainly never considered themselves gay, like male rapists in prison the act has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the attacker or victim. "It's not about sexual gratification, rather a sexual aggressor using somebody else as a means of expressing their own power and control".



"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."

Except for Lawrence's fictional account I have never seen any evidence nor accounts supporting the above claim.

Apologies to our Turkish friends for posting this but this type of claim needs to be challenged.

Tosun Saral
Member
Posts: 4085
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 20:32
Location: Ankara/Turkey
Contact:

#6

Post by Tosun Saral » 04 Feb 2008, 12:20

Like most of the soldiers and officers of the enemy Turkish soldier was also a very good believer. He was a good moslem. The religion prohibites such a homosexual act. For that reason Lawrence fabricated an illusion because he was a homosexual. We have all seen the movie Lawrence of Arabia. In a sceene when he was arrested by Turkish gendarms he tell how he was sexually raped by an officer. It is a great lie.

User avatar
Mr Holmes
Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 30 Jun 2005, 13:14
Location: Australia
Contact:

#7

Post by Mr Holmes » 04 Feb 2008, 15:01

I have taken the following from Mango's Atatürk which may either help, or not, the discussion at hand. It is obvious that Mango would not delve deeper into this issue, since in the present paragraph Mango is discussing Atatürk's family life (in particular Zübeyde's remarriage and his relations with the step-relatives).
Atatürk liked him [Sürreya], and remembered being given by him a flick knife to guard his virtue against immoral approaches. Falih Rifki, Atatürk's main publicist, explains: 'We all know that in those days when women were secluded, sexual morals were very low among the Turks.' He does not add whether young Atatürk - by all accounts, a good-looking, blue-eyed, fair haired youth - ever had to use the weapon.
(Mango, Atatürk, p. 38)

Why have I quoted this passage? Certainly not to offend anyone who is Turkish. Rather, to draw upon the point that no nation can be sanitised (puritanically, I mean) of such acts. On the other hand, it is probably not fair to make sweeping generalisations either. But it would be impossible (and wholly fantastical) to be able to state with extreme certainty that no such things ever happened within the military.

I seem to remember a thread here on AHF with regards to a breakdown of Turkish troop discipline in one of the Balkan Wars (I think in battle with the Bulgarians?) but am unable to find it in my searches. I think that the issue at hand was touched upon in that thread, if I remember correctly.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#8

Post by Penn44 » 04 Feb 2008, 17:05

Tosun Saral wrote:Like most of the soldiers and officers of the enemy Turkish soldier was also a very good believer. He was a good moslem. The religion prohibites such a homosexual act.
Your defense that Turk soldiers did not engage in such behavior because they were "good moslem" is easily shot down. Afghans, for example, are good (conservative) moslems as well, but pederastry is quite common there.

Penn44

.

Tosun Saral
Member
Posts: 4085
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 20:32
Location: Ankara/Turkey
Contact:

#9

Post by Tosun Saral » 04 Feb 2008, 19:50

Penn44

Have you been in Afganistan or in Turkish Army. Self experience?
You are very eccentric

User avatar
VEDAT
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 23:18
Location: ISTANBUL

#10

Post by VEDAT » 04 Feb 2008, 20:18

@Penn44: what a Bullsh*t question!?!

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#11

Post by Penn44 » 04 Feb 2008, 20:47

Tosun Saral wrote:Penn44

Have you been in Afganistan or in Turkish Army. Self experience?
You are very eccentric
My question regarding the Turkish army arose from my recent reading of Plant's book as well as past reading of Lawrence's work.

My knowledge regarding Afghanistan come from direct conversations with persons who have been there, and who have direct, factual knowledge of the occurence there.

One's adherence or devotion to any religion does not preclude cultural and individual deviations from canon.

I could have also commented on other cultural and individual deviations from canon based on my 1 1/2 years experience in Iraq dealing with different ethnicities and sects.

Penn44

.

Gazimev
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 30 May 2006, 21:05
Location: Istanbul / Turkey

#12

Post by Gazimev » 04 Feb 2008, 20:57

Penn44;
Have you ever seen power of Turks (in every respect) ?
Did you research your nation's sexual preferences that Do you wonder Turkish Army's sexual preferences ?

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#13

Post by Penn44 » 04 Feb 2008, 21:08

Based on recent and past historical readings which I provided with quotes and sources, I asked a simple question regarding the prevalence of a certain activity within the Turkish army, that's all.

Penn44

.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#14

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Feb 2008, 21:33

...which indeed merits a historically accurate and qualitiative/quatitative answer, not the standard blank denial and reactionary namecalling.

User avatar
cj
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 22:27
Location: Sacramento California

#15

Post by cj » 04 Feb 2008, 22:20

Penn44 Im sorry, this site is good and is lucky to have avoided the neo-nazi's but has a hell of a time controlling uber nationalistic Turks and fanatical Islamists.

Heres a relatively useful link
http://www.qrd.org/QRD/www/world/europe ... ttoman.htm

although it says homosexual acts fell out of the norm with the civilizing from the Europeans long before the First World War, but it was quite common (bath houses and the palace in Busra), particularly in the army, before the cultural influence.

Post Reply

Return to “The end of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923”