"THE GENTLE AND CLEAN-FIGHTING TURK"[9]
The Allies have declared in their reply to President Wilson that one of
their aims is "the turning out of Europe of the Ottoman Empire, _as
decidedly foreign to Western civilization_."
This fact of the Turk being "decidedly foreign to Western civilization,"
affirmed on the authority and conviction of the Governments of four of
the greatest and most advanced nations of Europe, needs no further
proof. Nevertheless it seems desirable, in the interests of truth, to
endeavour to dissipate the misconception that has been created by the
extraordinary myth of "the clean-fighting Turk."
There has been a disposition in this country, natural and intelligible
under the circumstances, to attribute the recent (let us hope the last)
and most terrible of the Armenian massacres wholly or largely to German
influence. That the German Government had it in its power to stop this
gigantic crime if it had so wished, there is no doubt. It seems likely
also that the Turk applied to his brutal scheme the method and
thoroughness he had learned from his German ally. But seriously to
assert, as some writers and speakers have done, that German influence
instigated the massacres, is to shut one's eyes to the Turk's record
ever since he became known to history. One need only turn the pages of
his history--a veritable chamber of horrors--to convince oneself that
massacre, outrage, and devastation have always been congenial to the
Turk.
Without for a moment wishing to absolve the German Government of its
responsibility, before God and humanity, for not exerting its influence
to save more than a million absolutely innocent human beings from death,
slow torture, and slavery: the fact, nevertheless, remains that Hulagu,
Sultan Selim, Bayazid and Abdul Hamid were not under German influence,
that there were no Germans at the sack of Constantinople or the
massacres of Bagdad and Sivas, or, in more recent times, at the
butcheries of Chios, Greece, Crete, Batak, Macedonia, Sassoon, Urfa, or
Adana. The Turk, in fact, has nothing to learn from his Teutonic ally
in "frightfulness"; he has a great deal to teach him. I readily admit
that there are some Turks who are gentle and good men. Some of these
have risked good positions and even their lives to protect Armenian
women and children. But most unfortunately for us, for humanity and for
the Turks themselves, such good Turks are few and far between.
It is true that orders for the extirpation of the Armenians were issued
from Constantinople, but can any one imagine such revolting orders
_being carried out_ by "gentle and clean-fighting" troops and people? I
shall be much surprised if any unprejudiced man or woman in any
civilized country believes that any but the Turkish populace and
soldiery would be capable of carrying out such orders. History at any
rate has given us no such evidence.
I believe that, under a just and honest government and better
influences, the Turkish peasant will, in course of time, lose his
proneness to cruelty, for he has good qualities. But if this war is
intended to see the end of tyranny, oppression, brutal religious and
political persecution and the discontent and unrest that such
conditions always produce; if it is to prevent the possibility of a
repetition of the hell that the Turks have let loose in Armenia since
they entered the war and _so often before the war_; then it is clear
that never again must the Turk be allowed to possess the power over
other races, which he has so abominably abused ever since he "hacked his
way through" to the fair, fertile and once highly prosperous country
which he has devastated and converted into a charnel-house.
The Armenians of Turkey had no separatist aspirations. They knew that
was impracticable. Nothing would have suited them better than a reformed
government in Turkey, that would give them security of life, honour and
property, the free development of their national and religious
institutions and an approach to equality with Moslems before the law. On
the promulgation of the Constitution, all the Armenian revolutionary
societies were transformed into peaceable and orderly political parties
as by magic. They had great hopes of achieving these aims and the
regeneration of the Ottoman Empire from within in co-operation with the
Young Turks before the war, and they gave the Committee of Union and
Progress (was there ever a more incongruous misnomer?) all the support
they could, which was by no means negligible; but they had not long to
wait to be completely and bitterly disillusioned. The Adana massacres
gave their hopes the first blow. The Armenian leaders proved too earnest
and sincere democrats for the Committee leaders who, with few
exceptions, were actuated, as events proved, more by inordinate personal
ambition than the "liberty" and "equality" which they so loudly
proclaimed and which have proved such a hideous mockery. The
chauvinistic wing soon gained complete ascendancy over the party, which
resolved on the covert or forcible "Ottomanization" of all non-Turk
races of the Empire (as is proved by the recent exposures of the Grand
Sheriff of Mecca), and ended by joining the Germans in the war in the
hope of conquering Egypt and the Caucasus.
It is a mistake to think that Germany forced Turkey into the war
against her will by the presence of the _Goeben_ and _Breslau_. Those
who had any knowledge of Turkish affairs had no doubt of the existence
of a military understanding between Germany and Turkey for some years
before the war. The arrival of a military mission at Constantinople
under Liman von Sanders left no doubt on that point.
On the outbreak of the European war, the Armenian Dashnakist Party met
in congress at Erzerum to determine the attitude to be observed by the
Party in relation to the war. Hearing of this, the Young Turks forthwith
sent representatives to ascertain the attitude of the Party in the event
of Turkey going to war against Russia. (See Blue-book, p. 80.) This took
place some weeks before the arrival of the _Goeben_ and _Breslau_ at
Constantinople. Nor was the war as unpopular with the Turkish masses at
the outset as is thought by many. If that were so there would have been
a revolt against the Young Turks, and Turkey would have been detached
from the Central Powers long ago. It may be less popular now, because
their dreams of conquest have been shattered and the whole country is
suffering. No Turk, Young or Old, had any particular objection to the
prospects of the conquest either of Egypt or the Caucasus, and many of
them aimed at a Moslem Triple Alliance between Turkey, Persia and
Afghanistan under German auspices, and even dreamt dreams of an empire
that would ultimately embrace India and the whole of Northern
Africa![10]
The Young Turks have tried their hand at the government of the Ottoman
Empire, and have failed more completely and proved infinitely more cruel
and brutal than the old Turks. Besides this, their betrayal of the
Entente Powers and the vast and unprecedented crime which they have
committed against humanity have left only one solution possible that
holds out any promise of peace, justice and normal progress in the
future. That one solution is, to draw up a new map of the Ottoman Empire
on the basis of nationality and historical rights, reparation in
proportion to services and sacrifices during the war, and the proved
aptitude of the races concerned for progress and development on the
lines of Western civilization.
There has long existed in Europe a school of politicians who have always
asked: "If you eliminate Turkish rule over the Turks' subject races,
what will you put in its place?" After what has happened in Armenia and
Syria, he would be a bold man or a prejudiced man who would deny that
_any_ change will be an improvement.
The unfitness of the Turk to govern alien, and especially Christian
peoples has been proved by such an overwhelming accumulation of
historical evidence and rivers of innocent Christian blood, that to urge
the contrary must appear like an attempt to obscure the sun by the palm
of the hand.
If this war is to bring peace and progress to Asia Minor instead of
chronic anarchy, bloodshed and devastation as in the past, there must be
an end of Turkish domination over alien races in any shape or form. By
all means give the Turk the chance of governing himself in the provinces
inhabited purely by Turks.
During the Turkish retreat from Thrace in 1913, the evidence of
newspaper correspondents was that the Turk was leaving Europe in the
same state--moral, material and intellectual--as he entered it four
centuries ago. The fact is, that centuries of contact with civilization
has made no difference to the nature of the Turk. War brings to the
surface the true nature of a people as nothing else can. The Turk has
proved by his conduct in this war that he is as cruel and brutal as he
was when he first swooped down as the scourge of God in Asia Minor one
thousand years ago. By centuries of conquest and domination he has
acquired an attractive free and easy outward manner which has stamped
him a "gentleman" in the eyes of European travellers. But the same
"gentleman" who will charm you with his manner will murder or enslave
any number of women and children without the slightest twinge of
conscience. Such is the Turkish "gentleman." The Turks are to-day
proving their gratitude for a hundred years of British and French
support by throwing the whole of their man-power and resources--largely
built up by British and French capital--into the scale on the side of
Germany. They have put at the disposal of Germany and held for Germany
the land routes by which alone she can hope to threaten the British and
French colonial empires. They have done their best to do England and her
Allies all the injury they can, and have given the enemies of England
all the help they can. And still the Turk and even the Young Turk have
friends and protectors in this country.[11] This, to my mind, is the
most astonishing phenomenon of the whole war. It must appear strange to
thinking Moslems that there should be found, in great and mighty
Christian countries, respected and prominent men who defend the Young
Turks at the very moment when their _protégés_ are persecuting and
massacring their weak and defenceless co-religionists in countless
thousands. I gravely doubt whether such an act is calculated to enhance
the prestige of Christianity in the eyes of the Moslem world.
Have the apologists of the Turks ever put themselves this question: "If
under German influence the Turks have been capable of attempting the
cold-blooded murder of a whole nation, how is the fact to be explained,
that under the same influence they were able to gain the reputation of
'clean fighters'?"
The irony of it all is, that in a war in which more than twenty
different nations are engaged, the Turk and the Turk alone among the
belligerents should have gained the epithet of "clean-fighter," though,
note well, from one of his adversaries only. How is this fact to be
explained? Is it seriously claimed that the Turk has proved himself,
under the test of war, superior in morals and chivalry to all the
nations of Europe?
Turkish mentality is not understood in Western Europe. The Turk has a
fanatical bravery which, however, easily degenerates into brutality. The
Russians, Rumanians and Serbs have fought the Turks for centuries. It
would be interesting to have their opinion of his "clean-fighting"
qualities. The fact is, the Turk knows he may need English help again
some day. He knows that there has long existed in England a school of
politicians which has believed that British interests in the Near East
will be best served by supporting the Turk. He knows that England has
millions of Mohammedan subjects who have still some sympathy for him on
religious grounds, and whose susceptibilities Englishmen are naturally
anxious to avoid hurting. He also knows that the British soldier is a
chivalrous warrior who gives full credit to his adversary for any good
qualities he may seem to possess. He understands the power of public
opinion in England. He sees, in short, that there is in England a
fertile and responsive psychological soil ready to nurture and fructify
a hundred-fold the smallest show of "clean-fighting" he may make.
Accordingly, the order goes forth to the Turkish soldier to be on his
best behaviour whenever and wherever he is fighting British troops, and
the Turkish soldier obeys with the blind obedience which is his chief
characteristic.
That is the true explanation of the amazing fact that so many--though
not all--British officers and soldiers have written or spoken of the
Turk as a clean-fighter. It is well-known that some wounded Australians
who had the misfortune of falling into the hands of the Turks were most
brutally mutilated in the early part of the Dardanelles campaign. A
wounded and gallant young New Zealander told me at a Hampstead hospital
that the Turks "put three bullets into him," while he was being carried
to the rear of the fighting line on a stretcher. (In case my remarks
concerning the clean-fighting qualities of the Turk should be
misconstrued or misrepresented as in any way implying a doubt as to the
evidence of British officers and soldiers, I wish to say emphatically,
what hardly needs affirmation, that I regard such evidence as absolutely
above doubt or question.)
The Russians said in one of their official _communiqués_ that a number
of their wounded had been mutilated by the Turks.
Two Russian hospital ships have been deliberately torpedoed by
submarines manned by Turks and flying the Turkish flag.
I do not of course suggest that there are no really clean-fighting men
among the Turks. There must be many such. It should be borne in mind in
this connection that, in the early stages of the war, the Turkish army
contained a considerable sprinkling of Christians--Greeks, Armenians,
Syrians, etc. But to label the Turks _as such and as a whole_ as clean
fighters and gentle folk is to admit the success of the most subtle
propagandist make-believe of the war and the biggest hoax ever played
off by Oriental cunning upon a chivalrous and unsuspecting adversary.
Armenians have known the Turk for centuries. They have known him _as he
is_, not as he affects to be in the presence of a European, and they can
claim credit for some knowledge of the subject. I venture to predict
that there is severe disillusionment in store for those who still
believe in the genuineness of Turkish "clean-fighting" and "chivalry,"
when the British prisoners in Turkey return. Strange indeed must be
this Turkish conception of chivalry to sanction the enslavement and
slaughter of women and children in hundreds of thousands, instead of
protecting them and their honour as the ordinary code of chivalry
demands.
A Reuter telegram from Cairo published in _The Daily Chronicle_ of
February 13, 1917, contained the following--
"It is learnt on reliable authority that the British, French, and
Russian prisoners who are employed on the construction of the new
line are treated most roughly by the Germans and Turks, and that a
large number are falling ill from dysentery and filling the
military hospitals at Aleppo. Those who have not been attacked by
dysentery have fallen victims to other diseases, resulting from bad
food, rough treatment, and overwork.
"One of the tricks adopted by the Germans and Turks, in order to
throw dust in the eyes of the British regarding the treatment of
prisoners, was the honour paid to General Townshend, who was
returned his sword and accorded the best treatment possible. They
brought him to Constantinople, and made him write a letter of
thanks for the good treatment he and his men had received at the
hands of the Turks.
"General Townshend did not know at the time he wrote this letter
what misery and hardship were awaiting his unhappy troops."
I may here quote in support of my contention one of the foremost living
European authorities on Near Eastern affairs, and one who certainly will
not be suspected of anti-Turkish prejudices--I mean Colonel Sir Mark
Sykes, M.P. Addressing a meeting at Kew on January 17, 1917 (I quote
from _The Near East_ of January 19, 1917), Sir Mark said--
"The Turk, who in the last ten years had thrown back to the
primitive Turanian Conqueror, was not content with dominating, but
was now engaged in exterminating the Armenian, the Syrian
Christian, and the Arabs, and was even now beginning to bully the
Jews. The Turk had overthrown Islam as Prussia had overthrown
Christianity. Prussia had replaced God by Thor and the Cross by
his hammer. The Turk had replaced Mohammed by Oghuz and Allah by
the "White Wolf" of the primitive Turks. No belief was to be placed
in that cloak of chivalry under which in exceptional cases the Turk
tried to hide his abominable acts.[12] He might treat General
Townshend well; but how was he treating the thousands of Indians
and Englishmen in his hands? If it were possible that the
Teuton-Turanian federation of violence could win this war it would
be twenty generations before mankind regained its liberty."