Turkish Prisoners in Egypt: A Report by the Delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross

In Short

This document is a formal, neutral account of a 1916–1917 diplomatic mission to investigate the treatment of Turkish prisoners of war in Egypt. Compiled by delegates from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the report systematically evaluates multiple camps and hospitals, cataloging everything from diet and hygiene to medical care and religious freedom. It serves as a rare primary record of the logistics of humanitarian oversight during the Great War, providing a stark, data-driven look at how colonial powers managed captive populations amidst global conflict.

The Story

The narrative begins with the delegates’ arrival in Egypt, where they secure authorization from British military leadership to conduct unrestricted inspections. Their journey takes them through a network of facilities, including the Heliopolis camp, the Abbassiah hospital, the Maadi camp, the Citadel at Cairo, and various sites near Alexandria. At each stop, the delegates focus on the physical infrastructure and the administrative policies governing the lives of thousands of Ottoman soldiers, civilians, and hospital patients.

The inspectors meticulously document the transition of prisoners from the battlefield to the camp environment. Upon arrival, individuals undergo rigorous disinfection and are issued new uniforms, complete with the traditional red fez. The report details the daily rhythm of camp life, which includes structured meal times, religious observance, and regular medical check-ups. The delegates note the absence of forced labor—a significant point of contrast with other theaters of the war—and observe that prisoners are permitted to spend their time in exercise, gardening, or small-scale hobbies like music.

As the mission progresses through the various hospitals, the account shifts to the grim, unavoidable realities of the war: the treatment of severe wounds, the management of dysentery and tuberculosis, and the process for handling the deceased. The delegates interact directly with prisoners and medical staff, checking registers and interviewing those in confinement. They find that, despite the inevitable hardships of captivity, the facilities are well-supplied with modern medicine and sufficient nutrition.

The arc of the investigation concludes with a summary of the delegates’ final assessments. They compare their findings in Egypt against their previous missions in Germany, France, and Russia, ultimately determining that the British authorities have met international humanitarian standards. The report ends with a call for the repatriation of civilians and the severely mutilated, expressing a hopeful, if cautious, expectation that the British government will soon take steps to release these individuals. The text concludes not with a dramatic narrative resolution, but with a bureaucratic confirmation of order, cleanliness, and the stated satisfaction of the prisoners themselves.

How It Unfolds

The mandate is established The delegates arrive in Cairo and gain full cooperation from British commanders, who provide transport and permission to photograph and interview captives. This cooperation is the essential condition for the entire investigative mission.

The camps are cataloged The text proceeds facility by facility, documenting the population, the daily food rations, and the sanitary arrangements. Each site is described with clinical precision, noting the quality of water, the type of housing, and the availability of tobacco.

The sick and wounded are assessed The inspectors visit several hospitals, where they review patient charts and medical statistics. They document the prevalence of specific diseases like dysentery and the provision of artificial limbs for those maimed in the conflict.

The inmates voice their status The delegates interact with prisoners and their elected representatives. These men generally report no complaints regarding their treatment, often focusing their concerns instead on the lack of news from their distant families.

The final verdict is rendered The report concludes by aggregating all observations into a broad assessment of the British administration. The delegates state their conviction that the prisoners are treated with humanity, confirming the project's purpose as a neutral validation of international wartime conduct.

The People

The report is populated by figures who exist in a highly structured, hierarchical system. The British Commanders, including General Murray and Brig.-General Casson, function as the gatekeepers, facilitating the mission to demonstrate their compliance with humanitarian norms. They represent the administrative authority that dictates the prisoners' daily existence.

The Turkish Prisoners—sergeants, privates, and civilians—are presented as a disciplined, orderly, and largely stoic group. Men like Sergeant-Major Hussein Hissan and Hamid Abdallah serve as the primary voices for their fellow captives, consistently affirming that they are well-fed and treated with kindness. They are characterized by their "brave endurance of pain" and their focus on maintaining religious practices, such as daily prayer and observance during Ramadan.

The medical staff, including doctors from the British, Armenian, and Syrian communities, play a crucial role as the maintainers of order. Dr. Keatinge and the various hospital directors manage the health of the population, while the orderly-interpreter Abrahim Hassan acts as a vital bridge between the captives and their captors. These figures are defined by their professional efficiency. Finally, the Red Cross Delegates themselves are the observers who stand apart, maintaining a tone of detached, professional assessment as they move through the camps, seeking to verify that the humanity of the prisoners is being preserved despite the surrounding war.

In Its Own Voice

The following entries reflect the meticulous, administrative nature of the report’s observations regarding the daily standards maintained in the camps:

The regulation food of the prisoners being ample, the canteen plays a very minor part in the feeding arrangements.

(This observation underscores the report's conclusion that the British authorities provided sufficient sustenance to the prisoners.)

The English doctors without exception praise the patience and brave endurance of pain shown by the Turkish prisoners.

(This comment highlights the professional respect the inspectors observed between the medical staff and those in their care.)

The English military authorities have not sanctioned compulsory work for prisoners.

(This line serves as a central point of the report’s argument that the treatment of these captives was more humane than in other global regions.)

What It's Really About

At its core, the book is a study of institutional legitimacy. It examines how a colonial power manages the burden of non-combatant and prisoner welfare under the scrutiny of an international body. The text is less about the personal politics of the war and more about the mechanics of humanitarianism: how many calories are sufficient, what constitutes sanitary living, and how a detaining power can prove it is not acting with cruelty. It poses the question of whether a captive life can be kept "orderly" and "clean" in a foreign land. Ultimately, the report is an argument for the efficacy of international oversight, suggesting that the presence of neutral delegates ensures a baseline of dignity even when nations are otherwise engaged in total war.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the First World War or the development of international humanitarian law will find this report fascinating for its clinical, dispassionate transparency. It is not a narrative of high drama, but a granular, observational record of a moment when the world was attempting to codify the treatment of prisoners. You will encounter a cadence of bureaucratic exactitude—the mention of "5 paras" for tea or the specific measurements of hospital wards—which creates a strangely vivid picture of camp life.

The difficulty for a modern reader lies in the document's rigid adherence to its own institutional perspective. It lacks the personal, subjective interiority of a memoir; you will not find the internal turmoil of the prisoners, but rather their official responses to their captors. Additionally, the text reflects the period's detached, colonial-era attitudes toward "native" populations and the management of displaced people. However, for those who value primary sources, the value is in the silence between the lines. The report’s insistence on the "orderliness" of the camps offers a chilling, quiet counterpoint to the chaotic, mechanized violence happening elsewhere in 1917. It stays with you as a reminder of how, even in the midst of global collapse, institutions strive to impose a cold, calculated order on human suffering.