No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2016
The Battle of the Dardanelles is one of the key episodes of World War I on the Ottoman front between the British, the French, the Australians and New Zealanders on the one side, and the Ottoman army under German command on the other. Immediately after the Great War, the former belligerents engaged in another war, which protracts up until the present day: allegations of violations of the rules of war are mutually addressed, in order to become a salient element of political propaganda. Through the analysis of the major controversial issues (use of dum-dum bullets and asphyxiating gases, attacks on non-military objects and sites, treatment of prisoners of war) and the study of various sources (official documents, correspondence and reports issued by belligerent forces, memoirs of Dardanelles’ veterans, ICRC reports) this article scrutinizes two crucial questions. Were the rules of war taken seriously on the battlefield? Was the law instrumentalized by the belligerents?
1 See for instance Hart, Peter, Gallipoli, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011 Google Scholar.
2 Contemporary Western sources often present the Ottoman army as the “Turkish army” and Ottoman combatants, in particular, are referred to as “Turks”.
3 Toumarkine, Alexandre, “L'invention permanente des soldats inconnus en Turquie”, in Cochet, François and Grandhomme, Jean-Noël (eds), Les soldats inconnus de la grande guerre: La mort, le deuil, la mémoire, SOTECA 14–18 eds, Saint-Cloud, 2012, pp. 191–206 Google Scholar.
4 Author's note: Alan M. Moorhead (1910–1983) was a correspondent during the Second World War and not the First.
5 Moorehead, Alan, Gallipoli, Wordsworth Editions, London, 1997, p. 148 (first published in 1956)Google Scholar.
6 As Gouraud had been seriously wounded and repatriated to France in June 1915, this speech was made between the landing at the end of April and late June 1915.
7 Canudo, Captain, Combats d'Orient. Dardanelles-Salonique (1915–1916), Hachette, Paris, 1917, p. 51Google Scholar. Ricciotto Canudo (1877–1923) was an Italian writer who had settled in Paris in 1902 and enlisted in the Foreign Legion at the start of the Great War.
8 Canudo, above note 7, pp. 46–47.
9 James, Robert Rhodes, Gallipoli, Pimlico, London, 1999, pp. 176–177. (First published in 1965.)Google Scholar
10 A. Moorehead, above note 5, pp. 158–159.
11 Münim Mustafa was studying law when war broke out. He was enlisted as a reserve officer. His memoirs were published for the first time in 1935, when they were serialized in the Turkish magazine Hayat.
12 Münim Mustafa, Cepheden Cepheye, Vol. I, Ege Basım Evi, Istanbul, 1940, p. 65.
13 To be more precise, by the Declaration (IV, 3) Concerning Expanding Bullets, 29 July 1899 (entered into force 4 September 1900).
14 For the Ottoman archives on which the examples given in this paragraph are based, see Muzaffer Albayrak (ed.), Osmanlı Belgelerinde Çanakkale Muharebeleri, Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Vol. I, p. 98 and pp. 136–141 and Vol. II, p. 11, pp. 218–221 and p. 225.
15 A war diary of the first battalion of the Herefordshire Regiment, for example, has the following entry for 16 November 1915: “Sniper using ‘exploding’ bullets. These explode on impact, 1 man having his head shattered.” See Ray Westlake, British Regiments at Gallipoli, Pen & Sword Books, Barnsley, 1996, p. 245. Cecil Harold Duncan, New Zealand lance corporal in the Otago Battalion, wrote in a letter: “one [sniper] was shot with his own bullets”. See Harper, Glyn and Jones, Major General Rhys, Letters from Gallipoli: New Zealand Soldiers Write Home, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2011, pp. 129–130 Google Scholar.
16 Evidence has been found that the Ottoman Ministry of Foreign Affairs approached the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representing a neutral country, on such matters in December 1915.
17 See R. Westlake above note 15; G. Harper and R. Jones, above note 15.
18 M. Mustafa, above note 12, p. 49.
19 Lieutenant William Britt noted: “They [the Turks] were using dum-dums and explosive bullets, which crack over your head like a cracker.” See “Lt Britt Describes the First Day on Gallipoli”, Australians at War, available at: http://www.australiansatwar.gov.au/stories/stories_ID=100_war=W1_next=yes.html. On the role of aural recognition, see also the account by the Australian lieutenant H. D. Skinner (D.C.M.): “There was bang under my very heels – an explosive bullet, I suppose.” “Extracts from the letters of Lieut. H.D. Skinner, D.C.M.”, Victoria University College Review, 1917, available at: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-VUW1917_31Spik-t1-body-d10.html.
20 See the Declaration (IV, 2) Concerning Asphyxiating Gases, 29 July 1899, (entered into force 4 September 1900), Preamble. “The contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases”.
21 Ridel, Charles, “Gaz de combats”, in Naour, Jean-Yves Le (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Grande Guerre, Larousse, Paris, 2014, pp. 242–245 Google Scholar.
22 Ibid .
23 For the correspondence sent from Athens, see Ahmet Tetik and Mehmet Şükrü Güzel, Osmanlılara Karşı İşlenen Savaş Suçları (1911–1921), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul, 2013, pp. 144–145.
24 Sheffy, Yigal, “The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East”, War in History, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2005, p. 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Ibid ., p. 281.
26 Ibid .
27 Ibid ., p. 283.
28 Ibid ., pp. 282–283.
29 For the letter of 2 July 1915, see M. Albayrak, Vol. II, above note 14, p. 225.
30 Quoted in François Cochet, “Haye (La), droit et conventions de”, in François Cochet and Rémy Porte (eds), Dictionnaire de la grande guerre, 1914–1918, Robert Laffont, Paris, p. 532.
31 M. Albayrak, Vol. I, above note 14, p. 147.
32 The newspaper Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, according to M. Albayrak, Vol. I, above note 14, p. 192.
33 Official statement from military headquarters, published in İkdam, 27 July 1915, No. 6624, in Murat Çulcu, İkdam Gazetesi'nde Çanakkale Cephesi, 3 November 1914–3 February 1916, Vol. 2, Denizler Kitabevi, Istanbul, 2004, p. 517.
34 M. Albayrak, Vol. II, above note 14, pp. 30 and 85.
35 “Communiqués relatifs aux opérations militaires” published in the Journal Officiel, 29 November 1915, p. 8687, referred to in the Journal de droit international, Vol. 43, 1916, p. 267Google Scholar.
36 Ibid ., p. 280, n. 5. Sheffy refers to Moore, William, Gas Attack: Chemical Warfare 1915–18 and Afterwards, Leo Cooper, London, 1987, p. 88Google Scholar.
37 W. Moore, above note 36, p. 280, which is based on Haber, Fritz, Poisonous Cloud. Chemical Warfare in the First World War, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 18Google Scholar.
38 Y. Sheffy, above note 24, p. 279.
39 See above note 9.
40 For the following paragraph, see Harp Tarihi Gezileri II (Çanakkale – Gelibolu), Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Yayınları, Genelkurmay Basımevi, Ankara, 2010, pp. 90–92.
41 Alongside other older military cemeteries, the martyrium (şehitlik) on the hilltops, was built in 1945 and restored between 1999 and 2013; it contains, in particular, the symbolic burial places of wounded people who were killed in those bombings and torpedoings.
42 Suleyman Pasha (1316–1359) was the son of Sultan Orhan. He is remembered for the major role that he played in the Ottoman conquests of the Balkans.
43 For a facsimile of the telegram, see M. Albayrak, Vol. I, above note 14, pp. 70–71.
44 See the correspondence forwarded at the end of October 1915 via the United States embassy in Constantinople and referring to the July 1915 bombing of the hospital at Halil Pasha farm.
45 These kinds of statements were made in the cases of the bombardment of Lapseki (through the British Red Cross), Gallipoli (through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for France) or Maydos (through the military authorities).
46 The ambulance was said to have stopped for some 15 minutes at each strategic position.
47 See Bulletin International des sociétés de la Croix-Rouge, Vol. 48, No. 190, 1917, pp. 186–188 Google Scholar.
48 Other belligerent powers were parties to other international conventions.
49 Düstur, (1. Tertip), Vol. VII, 1941, pp. 307–301. It is interesting to note that the text was published in this collection of Turks laws in the Republican era (and right in the middle of the Second World War), which confirms once again the legal continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. See Öktem, Emre, “Turkey: Successor or Continuing State of the Ottoman Empire?” Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, 2011, pp. 561–583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
50 Ratified on 24 August 1907. See ICRC, “Turkey- Historical documents”, Treaties, States Parties and Commentaries, available at: https:// www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/dih.nsf/vwTreatiesHistoricalByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=TR.
51 Interim Reports from the Committee of Inquiry into Breaches of the Laws of War, report presented to the Attorney General on 13 January 1919, Art. 24; quoted in Doğan Şahin, Türklere Esir Olmak – Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet'e Savaş Yıllarında Yabancı Esirler, Ozan Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2015, p. 89.
52 Similar provision is made in Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC III), Art. 17(1) and (2).
53 Luscombe, L.H., The Story of Herold Earl – Australian, W.R. Smith & Paterson, Brisbane, 1970 Google Scholar, quoted in D. Şahin, above note 51, p. 121.
54 See the foundational work by Cemalettin Taşkıran, Ana Ben Ölmedim – 1. Dünya Savaşında Türk Esirleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul, 2001.
55 See, in particular, the most recent study by Doğan Şahin, above note 51.
56 Yücel Yanıkdağ, “Prisoners of War (Ottoman Empire/Middle East)”, 1914–1918 Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer and Bill Nasson, (eds), Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10269.
57 Y. Yanıkdağ, above note 56.
58 Ahmet Altınay, Katran kazanında sterilize. Bir Türk subayınn İngiliz esir kampında üç yıl, Tarih Düşünce Kitapları, Istanbul, 2004; see also Cemil Yursever, Gözlerim Eyvah!, Çukurovalı yay, Adana, 2009.
59 See C. Taşkıran, above note 54, pp. 58–115.
60 See Report on the Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Turkey, presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, November 1918, published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, UK, 1918, pp. 2–3.
61 This change came about after Mazlum Bey was transferred.
62 Report on the Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Turkey, above note 60, pp. 11–12, 15.
63 Ibid ., pp. 175–176. The remains of the German cemetery have been transferred but its location is marked by a monument that was inaugurated in 2005.
64 Report on the Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Turkey, above note 60, p. 13.
65 Ibid ., pp. 175–176.
66 A. Altınay, above note 56, p. 182.
67 Compare with the article 8 of the 1899 Hague Regulations stipulates that “Escaped prisoners who are retaken before succeeding in escaping from the enemy's actual sphere of action, or before being able to rejoin the armed force to which they belong, are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous flight”. Similar provisions were later adopted in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 27 July 1929 (not in force), Art. 50 and in GC III, Arts 91–92.
68 R. F. Lushington, A Prisoner with the Turks, 1915–1918, Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd, London, 1923, in D. Şahin, above note 51, pp. 121–122.
69 D. Şahin, above note 51, pp. 139–140.
70 Randall Family Papers, State Library of Victoria, MSB 401, MS 11287, in D. Şahin, above note 51, pp. 122–123.
71 Cemalettin Taşkıran, Ana Ben Ölmedim – 1. Dünya Savaşında Türk Esirleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul, 2001, pp. 149, 156 and 159.
72 Osman Akandere and Hasan Ali Polat, “Esirler Perspektifinden Çanakkale Muharebelerinin Dramatik Yüzü”, Gelibolu, Efsane ve Anı, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi, 2013, pp. 190–192.
73 That resolution was likely the outcome of a motion tabled by two members of parliament from Edirne, Faik Bey and Şeref Bey, on 28 May 1921 regarding the repatriation of Turkish prisoners to Malta, the last part of which asks for “the doctors, the officers and the British commander who, with malice aforethought and under the pretext of medical sterilization, methodically plunged 15,000 children of the homeland into a bath containing too much cresol be pronounced criminals”. Having taken the floor, Şeref Bey then explained to the Assembly that “Turkish” prisoners were first plunged in this bath up to their necks; British soldiers then forced them to immerse themselves fully by threatening them with bayonets; that was how 15,000 “Turks” allegedly lost their sight. A. Altınay, above note 56, p. 15.
74 C. Taşkıran, above note 72, pp. 143–144. Notably, Mustafa Kemal then sent a telegram to the regional government in Konya inviting the townspeople to organize a meeting to protest about violation of freedom of the press: a demonstration by five thousand people took place on 23 January 1920.
75 It was alleged that two Armenian doctors carried out surgery in the Sidi Bashir camp under the auspices of physician Colonel E.G. Garner. C. Taşkıran, above note 72, pp. 143–144.
76 ICRC, Report on visits to camps in Egypt, p. 45. See also ICRC, Turkish Prisoners in Egypt. A Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 1917, pp. 9–10.
77 A. Altinay, above note 58, p. 15.
78 Yücel Yanıkdağ (2014). The historian Yücel Yanıkdağ draws attention to the fact that illnesses killed or disabled many prisoners in the British camps in Egypt: trachoma, an infectious and contagious eye disease, and pellagra, an illness caused by malnutrition, which is said to have affected 9300 Ottoman prisoners. He points out that pellagra develops primarily because of ill treatment or insufficient supply of B3 vitamins, resulting from differences in the European and non-European diet. Y. Yanıkdağ, above note 56.
79 ICRC, above note 78, p. 45. See also Turkish Prisoners in Egypt. A Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, above note 78, pp. 145–147.
80 See for example the personal involvement of Enver Pasha through his correspondence appealing to the Ottoman Ministry of Foreign Affairs discussed above.
81 Needless to say that nowadays, the principle of reciprocity is extraneous to IHL and reprisals used to the detriment of persons protected by IHL are prohibited. The rejection of reciprocity in IHL progressively pervaded international human rights law. See René Provost, “Reciprocity in human rights and humanitarian law”, British Year Book of International Law, 1994, pp. 383 ff; Gennarelli, Maria Felicita, “Le riserve ai trattati sui diritti umani”, Rivista della cooperazione giuridica internazionale, Vol. IV, No. 11, 2002, p. 40Google Scholar; Cohen-Jonathan, Gérard, “Les réserves dans les traités institutionnels relatifs aux droits de l'homme. Nouveaux aspects européens et internationaux”, in Revue générale de droit international public, Vol. 4, 1996, p. 916Google Scholar ; Kearney, Richard D. & Dalton, Robert E., “The Treaty on Treaties”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 64, No. 3, 1970, p. 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caportorti, Francesco, “L'extinction et la suspension des traités”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, Vol. 134, No. 3, 1971, p. 554Google Scholar; Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001), art. 50§1c; France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands v. Turkey, 6 December 1983 (admissibility), European Commission on Human Rights, Decisions and reports, 35, p. 196, §39.
82 See Öktem, Emre, “Le traité de Paris de 1856 revisité à son 150ème anniversaire: quelques aspects juridiques internationaux”, Le congrès de Paris (1856) un évènement fondateur, Ameil, Gilbert, Nathan, Isabelle and Soutou, Georges (eds), Directorate of Archives, French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, 2009, pp. 151–170 Google Scholar.