32

In defending his decision to withdraw from northern Syria and cease supporting Kurdish fighters in the face of the 2019 Turkish invasion, Donald Trump said:

[The Kurds] didn’t help us in the second world war, they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example ...

What exactly is Trump talking about? In what way were Kurds involved, or not involved, in the invasion of Normandy? Was there a sizable Kurdish population in France, or a Kurdish contingent of the Allied Powers which refused to support the operation, or something else?

MCW
  • 33,640
  • 12
  • 105
  • 158
TypeIA
  • 455
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18
    I don't understand. Trump states that the Kurds didn't help, and you're asking how they helped? Trump's quote is a rhetorical device, not a historical assertion. This question appears more political than historical. – MCW Oct 10 '19 at 11:59
  • 27
    @MarkC.Wallace Were any asked to or expected to help, but refused? That's really the question. If I tell you "the Kurds didn't help me make dinner last night" you might naturally wonder why I said that; perhaps I live with some, or perhaps I'm talking nonsense. I realize the political dimension is OT here but any factual historical information that might shed light on the statement would be welcome. If none, that is also an acceptable answer. – TypeIA Oct 10 '19 at 12:06
  • 7
    As the cited Guardian article observes, Trump appears to be referencing an article titled Critics Aghast As Trump Keeps Word About No More Wars by the conservative columnist Kurt Schlichter. At no point does Trump or Schlichter claim that there was any reason why the Kurds should have been involved with Allied operations in Normandy in any significant numbers. – sempaiscuba Oct 10 '19 at 12:07
  • 2
    @TypeIA - precisely - if you said that I'd wonder. If a politician said that, I would interpret it as a rhetorical device. I am not making a political statement when I say that it is not rational to apply the standards of historical scholarship to speech by political figures. Political speech is characterized by rhetorical devices, hyperbole and is intended to persuade/shape the discussion, not to educate or to provide factual information. The only reason to fact check a political statement is to advance a political agenda, which is why I'm suspicious of the question. – MCW Oct 10 '19 at 12:16
  • @MarkC.Wallace I agree totally. I just wanted to know if there perhaps was a historical basis that would explain the statement. I am not a history scholar, so maybe there was a Kurdish holdout story I wasn't aware of. It sounds like this is not the case, and that is what I was trying to learn. – TypeIA Oct 10 '19 at 12:21
  • @MarkC.Wallace I understand the suspicion, especially in today's environment. Rest assured the question sought historical fact only. I think John's answer below is perfect and I intend to accept it. Thanks to everyone. – TypeIA Oct 10 '19 at 12:33
  • 4
    Thank you for being understanding - I didn't mean to be disagreeable or unwelcoming, but I was anxious about crossing the line between politics and history. – MCW Oct 10 '19 at 12:34
  • 2
    Honestly, despite the dangers, this is the kind of timely question I'd like to see more of here (assuming we can keep things historical). – T.E.D. Oct 10 '19 at 15:26
  • @sempaiscuba At the risk of being political, that does seem to be what Trump claimed. I'm not sure how "they mention the names of different battles, they weren’t there" can be anything other than a claim that the Kurds said they were there and lied about it. As much as Schlichter's op-ed has major holes in it, he didn't say that. So as usual, it's a mystery where Trump pulled that assertion from. – Graham Oct 10 '19 at 21:59
  • 1
    @Graham Taking the charitable view, I'd assumed that the first "they" ("they mention ...") referred to the author of the article (Schlichter mentions Normandy, Inchon, & Kandahar). But it is Donald Trump making the speech, so I may be wrong. – sempaiscuba Oct 10 '19 at 22:05
  • The statement is typical of political talk. It is true that the Kurds did not help at Normandy. Neither did the Turks. Or for that matter the Swedes. The implication is, sort of, that they did not want to help. The truth is closer to something different. It also forgets that the Kurds did help in Iraq and Syria. By not stating this two later occurances it helps in mudding the whole area and moving the discussion away from the relevant questions. Instead the statement starts long discussions about other things. Sadly, quite typical of the fantastically skilled demagogue Trump. – ghellquist Oct 11 '19 at 13:42
  • It's basically Monty Python asking, "What have the Kurds ever done for us?" (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo .) – user3445853 Oct 11 '19 at 20:54
  • This is not a question belonging here. Ask at Politics. Voted to close. –  Oct 13 '19 at 06:19
  • 2
    @sempaiscuba Now i wonder what happens once DJT finds out that at Normandy the Germans weren't exactly helping either… – LаngLаngС Oct 13 '19 at 21:27

2 Answers2

60

The Kurds had very little involvement in WWII and no capacity to take action as a group. At the time, just about all of them lived in the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. They had no self-determination, and those states acted as follows:

  • Turkey was neutral throughout WWII.
  • Iran was invaded and occupied jointly by the USSR and the British Empire in late summer 1941, to create a route for supplies to be sent to the USSR from India, and to secure control of the Iranian oil fields. The occupying powers withdrew after the end of the war, although the Soviets did not want to at first.
  • Iraq was under British influence. There was a coup by Iraqis sympathetic to Germany in spring 1941 and an attempt to expel British forces, but it failed. The British recruited local troops, about 25% of whom were Kurds, but they were under British control. As per the link:

By 1942, the Iraq Levies consisted of a Headquarters, a Depot, Specialist Assyrian companies, 40 service companies and the 1st Parachute Company, which consisted of 75% Assyrian and 25% Kurd. The new Iraq Levies Disciplinary Code was based largely on the Indian Army Act.

By 1943 the Iraq Levies strength stood at 166 British officers controlling 44 companies; 22 Assyrian, five Mixed Assyrian/Yizidi, ten Kurdish, four Marsh Arabs, and three Baluchi. Eleven Assyrian companies served in Palestine and another four served in Cyprus. The Parachute Company was attached to the Royal Marine Commando and were active in Albania, Italy and Greece. In 1943/1944 the Iraq Levies were renamed the Royal Air Force Levies.

So a platoon or so of Kurds, in the Parachute Company, served in Albania, Italy and Greece with the Royal Marine Commandos, but they weren't at Normandy. There is no sign of any Iraqi units in the order of battle for Gold, Juno or Sword beaches.

The Kurds, as a people or a political group, did not have an important role in WWII, and there was no significant Kurdish diaspora to influence events elsewhere.

Addendum: More information about the Iraq Levies here and here.

John Dallman
  • 31,603
  • 5
  • 107
  • 132
12

Just some additional information, from an Oct. 10 NYT Article
(apologies if there's a paywall)

... Did Kurds fight in World War II?

It is unclear whether any Kurds were at the Normandy landings, but there is evidence that some of them fought on the side of the Allied forces during World War II.

Some background: The Kurds, despite being the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East, are a stateless and often marginalized people whose homeland stretches across Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Armenia. After World War I, the Allies’ negotiations with representatives of the defeated Ottoman Empire initially involved provisions for an autonomous Kurdistan. But that was abandoned by the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Multiple attempts at greater autonomy or nationhood since then have been suppressed or quashed.

Some of the Kurds who had been pushed out of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey landed in the Soviet Union, said Mutlu Civiroglu, a Kurdish affairs analyst in Washington. So when World War II began, many fought with the Soviets on the side of the Allies. But they were difficult to track because they did not fight under a Kurdish flag.

“They didn’t have a country,” Mr. Civiroglu said. “They didn’t have a navy. They didn’t have anything on their own. But individually, many people came forward.”

Evidence of this has survived in folk songs and books that pay tributeto Kurds who fought in World War II, Mr. Civiroglu said. He also noted that Samand Aliyevich Siabandov — a member of the Yazidis, a Kurdish-speaking religious minority — was a well-known Soviet fighter who was lauded in the English-language Russian newspaper Moscow News in 1946.

BruceWayne
  • 223
  • 2
  • 9