A lot of heads of state, thinkers and authors wrote about the Turks in their various books. In my article I will try to give brief examples of some of these writings.
The Turks established many states in Asia, Europe and Africa in a time period of more than 2,000 years.
The obvious characteristic of all the states established by the Turks is that they all had an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance in terms of individual rights and liberties.
The nations and minorities who lived under the rule of Turks did not lose their identities; instead they became rich and developed. They freely used their own languages and practiced their religions in churches and synagogues.
The objective western writers who had a chance to get to know the Turks wrote about the hospitality, honesty, helpfulness and cleanliness of Turks as well as the peace and safety of Turkish public life.
They also wrote about the patriotism and courage of the Turks. Napoleon Bonaparte said, “The Turks can be killed but not defeated”.
The Seljuks and the Ottomans did not force countries and their people to assimilate. In contrast, they invited them to be a part of the state. Osman Gazi, the builder of the Ottoman State, did not take decisions without consulting Byzantine thinkers and Christian congregations.
F. Babinger: “Everybody was happy with their lives. There was complete religious freedom, and nobody faced any difficulties because of his or her religion.
F. Grenard: “Under the Ottoman authority the public was completely free to speak their native languages and to practice their religion.
The Serbian Prince sent a board to Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror asking what liberties he would give the Serbians if they were allowed to govern their state by themselves. In response to this Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror said: “I will allow you to build a church next to every single mosque and let people practise their religion in them.”
Genoese Chenier: “Some Protestant French planned to take refuge in one of the Ottoman countries. The reason for this was the unchanging tolerance of the Turks. By the end of 1717 some French people had moved to Istanbul because of this.”
Famous European jurist, Prof. M. Philip Marshall Brown, stated the following in his book “Foreigners in Türkiye and Their Legal Status” published in 1914: “The fact is that the Turks, out of their generosity and willingness, allowed the countries that they conquered to allow their own culture and traditions to live on.”
We can also give Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror’s edict as an example in this matter.
This edict, allowing freedom and liberties to those from different religious and ethnic backgrounds, was written in Milodraz on 28 May 1463, after the Conquest of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The original script of this edict is in Franciscan Catholic Church in Fojnica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The first known and the oldest human rights manifesto, this edict was put into practice 326 years before French Revolution, 485 years before the 1948 International Human Rights Declaration, and 29 years before the discovery of America. This edict, signed and sealed by Sultan Mehmet, Conqueror of the Worlds and the Magnificent, reads as follows:
I, Sultan Mehmet declare to the world that all the Bosnian Franciscans who are subject to this edict are under my patronage and I command:
“Let nobody disturb or do harm to those mentioned above or their churches. Let everyone who became refugees of our state live freely and in peace and safety. They are free to migrate to all the lands of my empire and reside in their monasteries.
Nobody, be they notables of the throne, viziers, civil servants, or the citizens of the state may humiliate these people or do harm to them. Nobody may endanger their well-being, their property or churches. Moreover, people invited to our lands by these refugees will also have the same privileges.
I swear into office hereupon to Allah the Almighty, creator of earth and sky, our Prophet Mohammed, the messenger of Allah, the 124 thousand prophets, and the sword I wear that nobody under my authority may violate this edict as long as they are loyal to the state.
b. The views of French thinkers and writers
1. Napoleon Bonaparte’s Views about Turks
“There are two virtues that elevate mankind: men being courageous and women being chaste and upright. In addition to this there is another virtue that honors both sexes: to sacrifice one’s self for his/her country. Turks are these kinds of heroes.
2. French Traveler Du Loir’s Views about Turks
Du Loir expressed his impressions of Türkiye in ten letters he sent between 28 November 1639 and 13 June 1641. These letters, included in the book “Les Voyages du Sieur Loir “published in Paris in 1654, mention the following about Türkiye.
“The Turks are good by birth. They are very sincere and modest. They fear feelings of enmity or revenge against others. They say they forgive their enemies before religious festivals and make peace.
They have houses called “imaret” to protect people and animals. In these houses all poor people get help regardless of their religion in proportion with their needs.
Some Turks build fountains, bridges, and roads for charity.
The rich give Islamic alms (money given as a religious duty) to the poor and help them with everything.
3. Grelot’s Views about Turks
The French traveler Grelot mentions the following about Türkiye in his book called,”Relation Nouvelle d’un Voyage de Constantinople = Bir İstanbul Gezginin Yeni Hikayesi” published in Paris in 1680.
“The refugees in the hands of Turks are not treated badly. They are like the second gentlemen of the house. Some refugees who were allowed to return to their countries came back to Türkiye again. They are never forced to change their religions.
They consider cleanliness as a main rule. They build a lot of public baths. The Turks eat little, and are satisfied with it.
4. Kont Bonneval’s (Humbaracı Ahmet Pasha) Views
He worked in the time of Ahmet III in the Ottoman office. He wrote his views about Turks in his book, “Anecdotes Venitiennes et Turques, ou nouveaux memoirs du Comte de Bonneval” published in Frankfurt in 1740.
“Although there are 2 million people in Istanbul, there are no beggars at all. All Turks, without even a single exception, are charitable. They all help the needy and establish charitable foundations for animals.”
“They do not commit injustices, do not lend money with excessive interest, and do not steal. In short, they are honest and you are impressed by them.”
5. Chateubriand’s Views
Born in Saint-Malo in 1768, the author wrote books on Christianity.
His views are mentioned in the newspaper “Des Debats” and he talks about Turks as the following in his book named “De Paris a Jerusalem”:
“The Turkish nation is really tolerant and compassionate. They allow the realities to continue although they themselves do not adopt them. Although it comes from their confidence in their power, this tolerance is a noble attitude.”
6. Alphonse De Lamartine’s Views
Poet and writer, Lamartine was born in Macon in 1790. He came to Türkiye in 1850.
He wrote the following in “Le Voyage en Orient”
“The Turks are the most upright nation on earth both as a nation and as a race. Their race is so clean and sublime. Their religion and virtues impress all impartial people. Their land is a land of heroes, gentlemen, and martyrs. Being an enemy of such a nation is no different from being an enemy to mankind. Let God protect me from such a thing.”
7. Pierre Loti’s Views
A naval military officer, the writer lived 1850 to 1923. He was born in Rocheport. He tells about Turks as follows:
“In order not to understand Turks you have to do away with history. The Turk’s dignified manner against unfair slanders comes from the fact that they believe biased people are incapable of understanding facts and so they pity them. This noble attitude is so beautiful an answer to false slanders against the Turks.
In his writing about the 1911 Ottoman-Italian war he said, “The Turks do not let others humiliate them.”
“Now, the western countries at war with Türkiye are secretly trying to get privileges from Türkiye, and this reminds me of hyenas around a lion. But why do they demand sacrifices from Türkiye? What did Türkiye do to them?”
Many impartial war correspondents gave true testimonies about Türkiye. Even they say that Turks despite being hungry and exhausted are satisfied with getting only a slice of bread from doors when they pass through a Greek village, without doing any harm. In Europe there are people who claim Turkish soldiers are looting. To protest against this is our primary duty. We did not witness anything other than patience, endurance, uprightness, and mercifulness.
(From his writing of December 1912)
and in Turkish book :
Pierre Loti - Can Çekişen Türkiye - 1914: kitap
8. Claude Ferrere’s Views
He was born in Lyon in 1876 and was admitted as a member of the “French Academy”, an honour only famous writers may attain.
After the First World War, France occupied the regions of Maraş, Adana, and Mersin. The writer at that time supported this idea: In the Middle East the French and Turkish self-interests lie in the same direction. If France is defeated its supremacy in the Middle East will end. In an effort to help the Balkan countries, France unknowingly creates a situation to its own detriment.”
The writer’s foresight became real 50-60 years later. French culture lost its dominance in Anatolia and the Middle East. He writes about Türkiye as follows:
“If I say I disliked the Turks when I left France for Türkiye in the summer of 1902, believe me. In fact, all French students finishing college thought so, because during their education they were fed with prejudices. If I say I returned to my homeland as a comrade to Turks, from head to foot, believe me again. All military officers come back with the same feelings I had because all knew that Turks are always right in every single fight in the East.
B. The Views of German Thinkers
1. Friedrich-Karl Kienitz’s Views
“The independence wars that started in south-eastern Europe meant the end of Ottoman rule first in Greece and then in Serbia. Most of the Muslims had to emigrate. Everything was done to eliminate Ottoman rule. The mosques were demolished or turned into churches; Muslim’s houses were destroyed. Only bazaars, fountains and public baths remained.”
2. Henri Nivet’s Views about Turks
“In the Balkan Wars the Balkan media wrote about what Turks did to them, but in a dignified manner the Turks tried not to mention the murders, tortures, looting, rapes they were subject to.”
“The reason behind the Eastern Question is the tolerance and nobility the Turks exhibited against defeated Christians. Turks could have done what the Spanish inquisitors did 500 years before or they could have tried to assimilate them under their administration, as some European countries did. But the Turks chose neither of these methods, which could have greatly affected the Christians. The Ottoman Government did not use any of the privileges conquests give them.”
3. Lietunant General Von Kres’ Views
He served on the Sinai front as a commander. He said:
In WW1 most of the Turkish public were in favour of peace and were expecting Türkiye to remain neutral in the war.
The Turks recruited 2.800.000 soldiers of which 2 million died in combat or through illness.
The Turkish soldiers were wonderful; courageous, enduring, and they had foresight. They were born soldiers.
Von Kress says the following about the Armenian Question: “When the Turks were fighting against the Russians, the Armenians began gang fights with martial help from France and Britain. They destroyed roads and disrupted supplies to the Turkish army. For this reason some regions were abandoned to Russia without any fighting. Armenians died in these fights but the number of Turkish dead was no less, and the Turks were victims of Armenian treachery. In such conditions of treachery and enmity the Turks had the right to protect themselves.”
Baron von Kress, who was a commander on the Sinai Front, says the following in his book published by the “Asia Warriors” Foundation:
“When considering Turkish military victory in WW1, one should keep in mind that it actually meant three defeats and one revolution. In these wars Türkiye lost a lot of its ammunition and was not able to restock them in a timely manner.
“When Türkiye entered the war, its Treasury was exhausted, its ammunitions and other military requirement such as food and clothing were insufficient and could not be added to. In view of these difficult conditions the Turkish service in war is both impressive and to praiseworthy.”
4. Major Mulman’s Views
Mulman praised the Turks in his book about the Çanakkale conflict:
“From 1912 on, despite the failings of the economic and political institutes, the Ottomans displayed heroism that it is unmatched in history. Türkiye depended partially upon the help of Germany and the Austria-Hungary Empire, but the heroism in combat is a direct result of the Turks themselves and their spiritual strength.”
“WW1 conflicts proved the Turks' prowess on the offensive.”
The Turks and the Germans were allied until the end of the war. Turks competed with each other in defying death, loyalty to duty, heroism, and sacrificing one’s self for the motherland. The Turks impressed the most powerful armies of the world. Despite the administrative inefficiency of the state the Turks deserved to be praised for their achievements.”
“At the very beginning of the war (25 May 1915) the XIX. Division was proceeding in cheers. The commander of this division was Mustafa Kemal, the president of the Turkish Republic, then a lieutenant colonel. The intelligence did not come in a timely manner, and it was vague, but Mustafa Kemal did foresee the danger and guessed the enemy commander’s plan. He thus stopped the 27th regiment of the 9th division. The artillery bombardment was growing ever more intense. The Turkish advance was proceeding across a broad front and successfully routing the Australian groups. Mustafa Kemal himself was bringing the battery to bear and leading the whole division. The landing was now fully under fire but the troops were advancing to the shore, and by 7.30 a.m. 8,000 troops had reached Gallipoli; 12,000 by 2pm troops. In this steep and difficult land, the soldiers entrapped in holes and small trenches under fire could not save their lives; both sides held on to what they already had. The Australians and the Turks were attacking with bayonets; both sides suffered great losses and were exhausted."
“An hour of firing and by the ironclad ‘Albion’ in preparation for the infantry assault ended. Other ships were firing on Turkish villages and defensive positions. After the British rifle company left, traces of life began to emerge and a close fight restarted, and the British, were able to control the village after sustaining heavy losses. But it wasn’t the end yet. A few miles away another Turkish group conducted a bayonet charge against the British ignoring the powerful British rifle fire.”
C. The Views of English Writers and Thinkers about Turks
1. Ricault’s Views
In the time of Sultan Mehmet he served as a secretary to the British Ambassador Count Winshesley and lived in Türkiye for five years before writing his book.
“I believe the victories won by the Turks are a result of their enigmatic and extraordinary power. Moreover, I witnessed this in the ban on alcohol and getting drunk. Banning alcohol makes soldiers more attentive and obedient. There was no fighting or noise in the Turkish camps.
There were no complaints of looting, rape or any kind of disorderly conduct from the places Turkish troops passed through.”
2. Sir James Porter’s Views
James Porter’s impressions of Türkiye while he was the Britain's ambassador in Istanbul were told in a two-edition book called “Sir James Porter” published in London. This book was translated into French in the name of “Observations sur La religion, Les Loix, La Gouvernement et Les Moeurs des Turcs=Türklerin Dini, Kanunlar, Hükûmeti ve Gelenekleri Hakkında Gözlemler.”
“In Türkiye there were no incidents of theft, swindling, or pick pocketing. In war and peace the roads were as safe as houses. In particular, it was quite possible to go anywhere in the empire using the main roads.
“As the justice rules were being applied swiftly and strictly crimes were being prevented.
“I met a Christian in his national garment. This man told me that although he passed through and went around the Turkish troops preparing to be sent to Iran, he wasn’t asked a single question or was detained from his way.”
3. Lord Byron’s Views
Grandson of an English admiral, Byron was born in London in 1788.
“Turks are neither two-faced nor dishonest. They never betray themselves. They do not kill except in war. They knew how to use their swords, but also how to care for a wounded opponent.”
4. Lord Beaconsfield’s Views
His real name was Benjamin Disraeli, a Lord, and was born in London in 1805. He wrote about the places he traveled to in his book “Young Duke”.
“In 1853 our diplomats brought us a horrible project and a very funny phrase. The project was based on how to divide the Ottoman lands and the funny phrase was “sick man”, which was used to describe Turks.
I want to say that the Turk is not sick. Ambitions both domestic and foreign perhaps portrayed this noble nation as being sick. But the Turk proved his courage and strength under all conditions. My opinion is that TURKS ARE THE NECESSARY MEANS FOR BALANCE IN EUROPE. Let us not disregard the Turks’ historic virtues, and high abilities.”
5. William Pitt’s Views
William Pitt the Younger was the prime minister from 1783 to 1801 and the son of the William Pitt who had been president.
The following sentences was stated by William Pitt upon the French invasion of Egypt and were published in his book “Big Politicians”
“In an effort to free Egypt we not only tried to create a path for Christians but also wanted to defend the Turks’ rights and privileges, which were being violated. The Turks were subject to unjust treatment although the only things they adhere to are justice and the facts.”
6. F. W. Von Herbert’s Views
Herbert, whose father and forefathers are British, served in the British and Ottoman armies.
His book “Plevne Müdafaası” was first published in 1895, and again in 1911. He was taken as a refugee by the Russians on 10 December 1877, and after staying in Kharkov, returned to England on 3 April 1878.
“The Turkish soldiers were so patient, enduring and persistent that it is impossible not to quote this from Moltke:”
“Turks never lost the spirit of a soldier. They displayed endurance, obedience, and strength in conditions where soldiers of other armies easily lost the spirit.”
“The distance of 115 miles from Vidin to Plevne was walked in seven days. This means 16 miles a day. Our soldiers were loading and discharging their weapons with extraordinary agility. These were the pride of the Turkish infantry who had been trained well to fire at a rapid rate.”
“These soldiers relaxed only for six hours after seven days walk and ate only small pieces of bread. Their feet got swollen and they were limping terribly. Exhaustion, hunger, and heat were almost deadly. (This incident took place on 20 July 1877 in the First Plevne War).”
“(30 July 1877, Second Plevne War). The People of Plevne were celebrating victory in streets. These people were very loyal to state. As they told me, these people carried food and ammunition to the front during the clash between Yunus Bey and Skobelef braving the bullets. These people also showed us the way, too.
“One patriotic man sufficed to stay in his kitchen and let the other parts of his house be used as a hospital.”
“That the Turks killed wounded soldiers is a complete lie on the part of a few partisans. The Turks treated other soldiers as they treated their own comrades.”
“For four and a half months, a commander (Gazi Osman Pasha), put up a dignified challenge against the Russians, who brought almost unlimited forces to the front. Only hunger and insufficient sources were able to defeat him. And Todleben, who had became famous in Sivastopol, realized this fact and persuaded Russians that they had to be patient.”
Grand duke Nikolai, the Commander of the Russian forces, recounted the conditions as follows in his letter to the prince of Romania:
“Come to our aid. No matter how or from where you can, just come to our aid because the Turks are wiping us out.”
“The Russian attack lasted four days. (7-10 September 1877). During this time we lost 500 men. The enemy’s loss was 2,000. Forget being discouraged, the Turks were laughing at the Russian batteries. This was all the enemy managed to achieve in four days of wasting 30,000 cannonballs.”
“The Turks defended Gorna Dubrik courageously for ten hours with 3,500 soldiers and four artillery pieces against 20,000 Russians and 60 artillery pieces. That night, the Russians took advantage of the night and suddenly attacked the Turkish forces, which had to surrender.”
“Here Turkish soldiers displayed great heroism under Ahmet Hıfzı Pasha.”
Disobedience and disrespect were so rare among the Turks. Dissent, rebellion and such never occurred.
The soldiers loved their commanders and unquestionably obeyed them would willingly sacrifice their lives for them.44 The number of deserters was less than 200. This means three soldiers a division a month.
Despite all the deprivation and suffering, their courage, passion and obedience were extraordinary. This shows a characteristic virtue of a race.
The situation was ever worsening. Plevne camp became graveyard. An army of 40,000 soldiers were gradually dying of hunger, exhaustion and deprivation. There was no one without some kind of sickness.
“The field marshal gathered all priests and made them swear on the Bible that they would maintain the well-being of all refugees, but when the break out attack failed these Turkish soldiers were mercillessly killed.”
The civil administration in Plevne served well despite all deprivation and shortages until the last day. They protected everybody no matter what religion they belong to, and those who committed rape were severely punished.”
“The Courts were always open and on duty, and the cases were tackled impartially. The fact that there were no incidents of rape or looting during the seven weeks proves that the administration did its job very well.”
7. Charles S. Ryan’s Views
Born in Melbourne in 1852, he entered the Ottoman army as a doctor soldier in 1877.
“I am sure there is not a single army in Europe as courageous as the Turkish soldiers, who fought in Plevne under the command of Osman Pasha.”
“(20 July 1877) I saw two Bulgarian horse carts carrying the wounded soldiers. And only the very wounded were being carried in carts. Other less wounded soldiers were being dragged with great difficulty and pain. As the coarse rough and uncomfortable carts went along the steep and rocky roads the soldiers’ pain doubled. So you can imagine the pain of a soldier whose hips was broken in a few places. As the carts jolted the pain must have been unbearable.”
“Osman Pasha was very strict in discipline and during all the battles in Plevne he maintained remarkable order and discipline.”
“At that time the newspapers accused Osman Pasha of treating Bulgarians badly. I can strongly stress the fact that far from treat them badly Osman Pasha treated the Bulgarians in complete fairness.”
“(3 September 1877) Osman Pasha applied very strict punishments in order to prevent looting. This very night an incident of this kind proved how sincere he was in that matter.”
“When our groups were passing on our way through the Bulgarian villages we came across a tobacco farm. A Turkish soldier who could not resist his smoking habit jumped over the fence and put tobacco leaves into his pockets. Osman Pasha noticed this and deprived the staff sergeant of his rank, making him a private again.”
“In our hospitals we had 5,000 injured soldiers and probably 3,500 of these had gotten wounded between 5 September and 12 October 1877. The rest were the soldiers of earlier conflicts. Some of these were so wounded that they could not be sent to Sofia for treatment. During the harsh fighting in September the Russians encircled us and our correspondence with the outside was cut, so the number of the wounded was ever increasing. The soldiers were cramped in rooms, which could accommodate only ten people. But there were thirty in one room, then. “
“No one who did not admire the Turks’ patience and heroism in war could not have endured what İ endured.”
“In the winter of 1877 the conditions in Erzurum became so harsh that the hospitals were full with patients. The cold made the patients’ conditions far worse.”
“Typhus, gangrene and pneumonia were to the advantage of Russians as these illnesses killed more soldiers than the Russian attacks. At nights the heat was below - 40 and every morning we witnessed four or five soldiers who had frozen to death at night. These heroes were found with their guns clasped to their chests and their eyes closed.”
“As Ahmet Muhtar Pasha narrated, the Russians who invaded Kars sent 2,000 Turkish soldiers to Erzurum on foot in winter. Not surprisingly only 317 of these were able to reach Erzurum. One of the soldiers told me that they were thirty soldiers at the beginning but now only ten, seven of whom had frostbite on their feet. Imagine, just for one time, what these soldiers endured coming 180 miles on snow dragging their wounded bodies. The hands of these soldiers were already frozen in March and during the journey in the snow, their hands were just bones. Their flesh from their ankles to the end of their hands decayed and turned black.”
“In the city of Erzurum, the conditions were getting worse and worse for everybody. Supplies were quickly running out. When Muhtar Pasha was summoned to Istanbul, Kurt Ismail Pasha, who took his stead, went to great lengths. By the end of December, it was decided that the evacuation of certain people from the city was necessary and 400 men and 200 women and children set out for Erzincan (five days’ walking distance).”
“This journey’s hardship was more than that of the journey to Kars. When these people were a day distance from Erzurum they were caught in a blizzard. When the men came back to look for the women and children they had already frozen to death. The soldiers who were able to return to Erzurum died of sickness, too, after a few days. This was a real catastrophe.”
“Now it is time to bring my book to a close, but before writing my last words I have to express my admiration of the Turkish soldiers, with whom I was friends for two years. Even in time of catastrophe, the Turks displayed the real merits of heroes throughout the wars.”
8. Sir Achmead Bartlet’s Views
One of the English MPs, Sir Ached Bartlet went to Teselia to observe the Ottoman-Greek war.
The following lines come from his memoirs:
“In the ten months following the 1894 December, the correspondents wrote untrue accounts of the confusion in the region. They unjustly accused the Turks of bad deeds. When the Turks defended themselves against some terrorists and killed a few hundred enemies, the British newspapers exaggerated this number up to 30 or 40,000 and gave untrue accounts.”
“Turkish soldiers are the most courageous of the world.”
“On the battlefield the politeness and good manners of the Turks were beyond my comprehension. As there was lack of water and it was really hot we asked for water from them and they gave us water without any hesitation or discontent.”
“Daily Mirror correspondent Mr. Stones related the following in his letter to his newspaper:
“The Turks have the best soldiers of the world. The Turkish soldiers are perseverant, courageous and obedient in times of difficulties and deprivation. If Turkish soldiers pass past through a street having bakeries on both sides and his commander tells not to get anything to eat, he will obey that command.”
Myself, an MP of the British Parliament, together with British newspaper correspondents (Times correspondent Clive Bigham, Standard correspondent Montgomery, Daily Telegraph private correspondent Pill, Roulther Agency correspondent Govn, Daily Mail correspondent Istivens, Morning Post correspondent Hamilton Veldan) mentioned the following points in our telegraph to Britain Istanbul envoy Filip Kuru.
“I am the witness to the truthfulness and obedience of the Turkish soldiers. The rumours regarding murders and looting on the part of the Turks are a lie. The night after the conquest of Yenişehir’s Seyfullah Pasha, Mustafa Natık, and Necip Bey made soldiers patrol the city so as to prevent undesirable incidents. Ethem Pasha, upon entering Yenişehir, assigned guards to protect the Christian churches.”
“The owners of hotels and shops in Yenişehir escaped from the city one day before the conquest. However, upon hearing the good manners of the Turks, they came back. The Greeks were not treated harshly by the Turks and were not attacked.”
“In Alasonia, Greek families lived in security.”
“The manners of the Ottoman soldiers were praiseworthy in every sense, and we can assure that the endeavors of the Turkish military officers to protect Christian’s properties resulted in great gratitude on the part of the Christians. The Residents of Yenişehir and nearby villages demanded Ottoman rule.”
9. Clive Bigham’s Views about Turks
The author of “Teselya’da Osmanlı Ordusu”, British Captain Clive Bigham, wrote all he saw in war as the correspondent of the newspaper Times.
“I was surprised to see the rate of the casualties among the soldiers going to the border from Thessalonika was no more than %5. The Turkish soldiers were coming from Asia Minor hundreds of miles away. They were strong and this probably came from their modest and simple lifestyles.”
“The Ottomans were so merciful and fair that they did not use the authority of the rules of war. On the battlefield the penalties were in cash fines. German colonel Von Sonenberg said he wished that he could have had the chance to make his country’s soldiers witness the courage, loyalty, and good manners of the Turks.”
10. The Views of the Anzacs about Turks
a. Attending 1877 Plevne War as a second lieutenant doctor, and then fighting in Çanakkale in 1915 General Charles Ryan wrote the following in his book “Under the Red Cross - Kızılhaç Altında”:
“I devoted myself to the Turkish Cause. I loved those brave soldiers who resisted difficulties in such a noble way. I felt devoted to the Turkish Cause with all my heart and soul.”
The opinions of other nations, who claim to be modern, have a wrong and misleading conception about Turks.
“I was so surprised to witness the good treatment of the Turks for the Bulgarians. I did not see even a single Bulgarian treated unfairly. I have to state this fact as a responsibility.”
b. Fighting in Gallipoli in the 1st Engineering Company, Sergeant Mansfield David Romsey wrote the following in his letter to Turkish author Baha Vefa Karatay:
“In Gallipoli our side had great respect for the Turks. Moreover, as this respect deepened it turned into affection. The Turk was not only a perfect soldier but also an upright and noble enemy in our eyes. We were convinced that no other army could defend their homeland better than Turks. There was a mutual respect and sympathy between New Zealanders and the Turks, which I hope will continue with future generations”
d. Fighting in the 9th Australian Cavalry Regiment, Harold Cilve Newhan mentioned the following in his letter to Baha Vefa Karatay:
“In the war in Gallipoli, we were most affected by the Turkish soldiers’ gentlemanliness. Our hospital ship, which had been anchored off the Anzac shore, was under Turkish artillery guard. If our ships came near the hospital, there was no fire. Such incidents created a great respect and sympathy towards the Turkish.”
e. Lord Casey, who fought as Australia’s General Envoy between 1967-1971 stated the following:
“We left that peninsula with a great respect for the Turkish nation. You are the sons of a courageous and humane nation.”
“Serving as the commander of the 5th Turkish Army in Çanakkale German General Liman Von Sanders said: ‘I did not witness any cruelty from Turks against those who came to kill them and dismiss them from their homeland. They were carrying wounded enemy soldiers into entrenchments and bandaging their wounds tearing apart their own shirts.’ ”
11. Alan Moorehead’s Views about Turks
“During the seven-hour bombardment of Kilitbahir in the Battle for Çanakkale those who witnessed the heroism of Turks talk about it with great admiration. The Turks did not escape the fire but went into it. That’s to say, they were firing disregarding the bombs and shell fragments exploding around their heads.”
“(17 April 1915) A British submarine was sunk. Lewis Einstein, English envoy in Istanbul, said that Turks behaved uprightly in that incident.”
“While the English soldiers were floating in the sea, the Turks on the shore dived into the water to rescue them. The dead were first buried somewhere on the shore and then taken to the British graveyard. The Turks treated the wounded as guests in hospitals and offered them candy.”
“(25 April 1915, the day allied forces landed on the shore) That day the Turks fought with extraordinary heroism and although they were far more outgunned, they did not lose their courage for a moment. There was not a faintest example of indiscipline. They always kept their discipline and self-composure.”
A low ranking commander but a genius, Mustafa Kemal’s presence was a most unfortunate situation in the war for the allied powers, because were it not for Mustafa Kemal, the Australians and New Zealanders could have captured Conkbayırı that morning and thus put an end to the Battle for Çanakkale.”
The most important aspect of the 24 May 1915 Armistice, signed after nine hours of discussion, was that there was no longer hatred towards Turks on the Anzac side. They had used propaganda against Turks and portrayed the Turks as fierce and cowardly brutes. But the close interaction during the war showed that the Turks were decent and of fine character.
When the Anzac soldiers were given gas masks, they refused to wear them saying “Turks are decent people, and will not use poisonous gas.” While the battle was raging there was a mutual sympathy among soldiers of both sides. Once a staff officer saw Turks freely wandering around Australian soldiers and asked: “Why don’t you fire?” As a response they said: “They do no harm to us, let them wander as they want.”
Between the entrenchments, presents were being exchanged. Turks were throwing candy, grapes and the like, while the allied soldiers were giving cigarettes and canned food.
12. General Charles V. F. Tawshend’s views about Turks
“Commanding the 6th division in Iraq during WW1, General Tawshend, after a quick advance on Selmanı Pak, was defeated by the Turkish forces and retreated to the South, Kütulammare. Finally they surrendered to Halil Pasha.
“Halil Pasha came to me. I wanted to surrender my sword and revolver to him but he did not accept them saying ‘They are yours.’ He said I would be a respectable guest for them.”
“Enver Pasha treated me the same way. I was welcomed by the officers of the 1st Army Headquarters in Istanbul on 3 June 1916 at 5.30 p.m. I was surprised to be treated so as a captive. I was taken to a house arranged for me with assigned Navy Captain Tevfik Bey. All expenses were paid by the Ottoman government and I could freely go about Istanbul.”
“What the Irish Question is to the British is what the Armenian Question is to the Turks. The Armenians helped the Russians and the British in every possible way and worked for Türkiye’s loss.”
13. David Hotham’s Views about Turks
English author David Hotham served as Times correspondent in Türkiye for eight years. He was sent to Germany in 1966. Short paragraphs from his book are as follows:
“In our age, the only nation to step to a higher civilization is the Turkish nation. Turks were once Asian; now they are Europeans. They want to be an absolute and perpetual part of Europe.”
“Then the Turks were admitted to NATO and other Western organizations; but in this the Cold War had a great impact. The Americans wanted Turkish support since they were so manly and courageous. Istanbul and the straits were under Turkish control. In case of a war with Soviet Russia, the Anatolian Peninsula would become a very strategic place. So, the Turks Were admitted to the European Community for military reasons.”
There is a significant difference between nations, who had always been externalized from Europe, and Turks. While others tried to imitate Western Civilization, Turks directly wanted to be Western.
“Türkiye underwent various phases of westernization in two centuries. But, as I mentioned before, the greatest westerner was Mustafa Kemal, who lived forty years ago. ATATÜRK and his friends aimed to make Türkiye a part of Europe and its civilization. They realized well that the biggest obstacle for integration was religion.”
“The essential principle of Turkish Revolution was in fact laicism. Without knowing what this principle means it is impossible to understand Türkiye. In the west, laicism means the line that separates the authorities of church and state, but in an Islamic country laicism has stricter implications. Because Islam and state have been closely connected Sharia law prevails in every field of life. No other Muslim country chose laicism. For this reason, Türkiye shocked the Islamic world with its attitude… The main objective of laicism in Kemalism was to get rid of bigots and reactionary people. Actually, there is no clergy in Islam. However, there was a clergy like that in Christianity in Türkiye. A primarily conservative class.”
“Turks have a peculiar characteristic of doing unexpected things at critical times, which is worth paying attention to. In the last century they displayed at least three examples of this. In 1919, after the Turks had been officially defeated, they re-started their independence war and turned defeat into victory. In 1945, President İsmet İnönü turned dictatorship into democracy almost overnight. And in 1961, generals who came to power one year before turned the system into parliamentary regime.”
“The Army in Türkiye is the best organized Kemalist power and had a certain character.”
“The Turkish army had highly motivated commanders even at first. A military book written in Kaşgar nine hundred years ago says a Turkish commander has to be so strong as to resist the devil, and must be full of respect and love towards any kind of favour. It also proposes that the four virtues of a commander are honour, generosity, courage, and profound military knowledge. So, in today’s Türkiye, both its personnel and the public view the Turkish army as a source of pride and power.”
“In Türkiye, the army is a part of life more than an element of state. It is a unifying, and civilizing power. Every Turk fulfils his military service if not handicapped. For most Turks this is a very significant stage of training and a right of passage. The Army brings young villagers from remote regions; feeds and dresses them. It teaches them to read and write, it teaches them fine and sends them to the cities as educated people. Most Turks enjoy being a soldier and try to benefit from it.”
“I remember once taking a soldier into my car in Istanbul. He was the son of an easterner. When I asked him what he thought of army service, he replied in a very serious manner saying: “The Army teaches man three things: discipline, benevolence, and civilization.” For an ordinary soldier, this was a remarkable reply. Moreover, the Turkish soldier does his military service under difficult conditions and strict discipline.”
“Those who fought against the Turks had a great admiration for them. Old veterans express this fact even today.”
“But under normal circumstances, a Turk is the most polite, helpful, and sincere friend. They do not want to hurt anyone. I was always treated with politeness, benevolence and understanding while I was in Türkiye.”
“During my eight year stay in Türkiye (1958-1966) not even a single Turk warned me in a threatening way. They always behaved friendly.”
“Turks have an interesting attitude towards money. Turks understand the importance of money like everybody else. But they have an extraordinary disregard for money. On my first visit to Ankara, I went all around Ankara in a cab. But at the end of the day, I realized I did not have enough money to pay the round. The driver (who saw me for the first time in his life), dispelled all my worries with a few nice words. Swinging his hands freely, he said, ‘Never mind, forget about it, you can pay some other day. He even did not ask my name and address. I myself gave them. But he came only one week later to get his money.’ ”
“The same is true for shopping. Enter any store in your neighborhood and suppose that you suddenly realize that you forget your wallet. The owner of the store gives you the things you want even you cannot pay at that moment because he is sure that you will not cheat on him and you will pay your debt. For Turks trust is very important. If you express a feeling of distrust to a Turk, he feels very sorry.”
“The traditional attitude of Turks about regarding money as despicable may come from their national pride. Note that Turks have a very strong empire past.”
“These days in daily life women play important roles. In parliament, universities, as writers and journalists there are a large number of women. Indeed, although it has only been recently applied in Britain there are a large number of women judges in Türkiye. Turkish women prove their achievements in art, too. There are master actresses, ballerinas and musicians among Turkish women.”
“The Turks believe that the Armenians are a betraying minority. They cooperated with Türkiye's enemies and collaborated with Russia to establish a separate Armenian state. For betraying their country with war and stabbing it in the back when Türkiye was faced by a national threat, the Armenians deserve their lot.”
“As Aubrey Herbert stated: Although the Armenians had an open road for developing Türkiye, they were deceived by Europe and driven to suicide.”
“ATATÜRK was the first Turkish leader who understood that the Turks should isolate themselves from the Islamic world for real westernization. So, with a logical extremism he established a secular state, which was unprecedented for a Muslim country. Thus, he set the conditions for adapting Türkiye to the Western world.”
ATATÜRK’S objective was to elevate Türkiye to the “level of contemporary civilization”. In his life he frequently used this phrase. And today people who follow his vision use it.
“I myself think that the Turks should be in Europe because I believe that they can contribute to Europe in many ways. The Turks know Europe; they have lived on the borders of this continent for centuries. They have slowly digested their civilization there. At least, they can contribute to Europe as much as their close relatives Hungarians and Finns. For the Turks are not a destructive but a creative nation.”
Conclusion
In history, we saw that many writers, thinkers and commanders who lived in Türkiye or had the opportunity to closely know Turks have positive and nice opinions about Turks.
Moreover, these writers warn people who have negative opinions about Turks without knowing them, and state that they are wrong to do so.
Today we see that foreign thinkers who know Türkiye and the Turks well have positive opinions, which makes us happy.
(Ret.) Brig. Gen. Erdal YURDAKUL, Ph. D.
TURKISH MILITARY HISTORY AND MILITARY CULTURE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MILITARY HISTORY
N° 87 Ankara - 2007
Gnkur. Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı
Türk Askeri Tarih Komisyonu (TATK) Genel Sekreterliği
06100 Bakanlıklar / ANKARA - TÜRKİYE
"Hattı Müdafaa yoktur, sathı müdafaa vardır.
Bu satıh bütün vatandır."
Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK
