In late 2001, I was sitting in the private library of the late David Littman, husband of the distinguished historian Bat Ye’or, in their beautiful villa overlooking Lake Geneva (Switzerland), when David received a phone call from his friend the official biographer of Sir Winston, Sir Martin Gilbert. Gilbert cited a memorable passage from The River War, about Islam and its votaries (which I shall quote later in this article). It was the first time I had heard this quotation. Since then, of course, it has circulated on the internet, and must be by now familiar to most readers of Jihad Watch. However, imagine my disappointment when I finally acquired a copy of The River War, I could not for the life of me find the oft-quoted passage. I suspect many readers of Jihad Watch had a similar experience. In fact, I had been desperately searching in what turned out to be the abridgment of The River War, first published in 1902 in London, also by Longmans, Green, and Co. There then followed other abridged editions, such as the ones in 1933, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, and New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, both carrying new forewords by Churchill. Even the ever-enterprising Gutenberg Project, which offers over 70,000 free ebooks, has only the 1902 edition of Churchill’s work.
It was only in 2020 that the original unabridged edition of 1899 was once again available, thanks to St. Augustine’s Press (South Bend: Indiana) and the combined efforts and enthusiasm of various scholars and institutions. I shall be quoting from this definitive edition.
St. Augustine’s Press advertised Churchill’s book several years ago, but each time I checked their online catalogue they kept delaying the date of publication, until I was convinced it would never be published, perhaps because of pressure from irate Muslim lobbies. But here it is at last. This edition is a tremendous work of scholarship, and is indeed likely to be the definitive edition, well worth the wait and price of $150.00 for the two volumes.
This edition highlights in red everything that Churchill cut out from all later editions, with the rest of the text printed in black. Some new appendices give the original wording of Churchill’s fifteen dispatches to the Morning Post on which he based “The River War.”
This re-edition of the original text of 1899 is much more than simple autobiography — Churchill himself participated in the historic charge of the 21st Lancers, last great cavalry charge of the British Empire — but is also a comprehensive military history of the whole of the Anglo-Egyptian campaign against the Sudanese Dervishes from 1885 to 1899.
As Churchill wrote in My Early Life, “I was a child of the Victorian era, when the structure of our country seemed firmly set, when its position in trade and on the seas was unrivalled, and when the realisation of the greatness of our Empire and of our duty to preserve it was ever growing stronger. In those days the dominant forces in Great Britain were very sure of themselves and their doctrines. They thought they could teach the world the art of government, and the science of economics.”[1]
Churchill entered Sandhurst, a leading military training academy, on 1 September 1893, and had graduated from it in December 1894. On 1 April 1895, Second Lieutenant Churchill was gazetted to the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars, a regiment which had fought in the Peninsular War and taken part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. They were posted to Bangalore, India in September 1896.
Churchill learnt that a Pathan or Pashtun revolt had broken out on the North-West Frontier and had led to Sir Bindon Blood being given the command of a three-brigade Malakand Field Force [MFF], whose task it was to punish the Pathans or Pashtuns for their frequent raids on British-controlled areas.
Britain’s main worry in the 19th Century was to protect her colonial possession, India, from incursions from Afghanistan and ultimately from possible raids from Russia. The rugged, rocky mountains of the N.W. Frontier Province formed a natural barrier between Afghanistan and India, consequently any power that controlled the mountains controlled the gateway to India, Britain’s prize possession. But the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan were, as the Imperial Gazetteer of India summarized, “full of resolution, their bearing proud and apt to be rough. Inured to bloodshed from childhood, they are familiar with death, audacious in attack, but easily discouraged by failure. They are treacherous and passionate in revenge …They are much under the influence of their Mullas, especially for evil.”[2]
[1] Churchill, My Early Life, p.ix.
[2] Quoted by Con Coughlin, Churchill’s First War. Young Winston and the Fight against the Taliban. London: Macmillan, 2013, p.25.
Captain Iglo says
😉
Captain Iglo says
Gunga Din?
Uma says
Intereting- thanks for sharing.
Regards
Uma
mgoldberg says
And thank you for your superb scholarship and text productions of enormous value.
Jedothek says
The Mahdist War (1881 – 1899) referred to in this article provides an instructive contrast with recent events. In those days Europeans knew how to respond to fanatical armed Islamic aggression: crush it. In recent years, Western response to such has been to apologize for being Western.
The Tin Man says
The Israelis just gave us a superb object lesson in Jenin.
Pray Hard says
Thumbs up. Please continue.
Hindu American says
My views on Churchill will not be liked by many Britishers or many JW’ers but I have to state them here for the record.
Churchill preferred the muslims over the Hindus. His quote from 1945 – “the Hindus were a foul race “protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due” and he wished Bert Harris (?) could send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them”.
Three years earlier Churchill had told Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky, the Soviet ambassador in London, that, “Should the British be forced to leave India, eventually, the Moslems will become master, because they are warriors, while the Hindus are windbags.”
If Churchill had not been part of the victorious Allies during WWII and adored by the West, he would certainly be tried for genocide in a Nurenberg-type trial. The Bengal famine of 1943 estimated to have killed up to three million Hindus was not caused by drought but instead was a result of a “complete policy failure” of Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Military and political events in early 1943 adversely affected Bengal’s economy. Wartime grain import restrictions imposed by Churchill’s British government played a significant role in the famine. Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen argued in 1981 that there should have been enough supplies to feed Bengal in 1943. Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles, meant for yet-to-be-liberated Greeks and Yugoslavs.
Churchill was quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive.
But, that’s history. We Hindus generally tend to forget and forgive. So be it.
John Smith says
Hindu American,
Much of this is true what you say about Churchill, he was a well known racist and didn’t like Hindu’s in particular. In fact in his youth he even considered converting to islam, however in his later years he made some pretty damning against islam. He must of learnt the truth.
John Smith says
Sorry, damning QUOTES against islam
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I have read this quote attributed to Sir WLSC: “When Hindus get into a dispute, they sharpen their arguments. When muslims get into a dispute, they sharpen their swords”
How much of this is correct?
Jinx the cat says
Re: Infidel re quote attributed to Sir WLSC: You ask ‘How much of this is correct?’ In what sense? The quote, or the behaviour?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
The quote
Alexandra Smith says
The behaviour.
tgusa says
Sword sharpening. After all the centuries of slaughter rape and kidnapping excuse me but Hindus seem to be a little slow on the uptake, of just too peaceful, i dont know but in my world there is a limit. When Americans get in to a dispute we usually attempt everything possible to avoid conflict. But when all else fails we the people become different.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Also, Hindu-American, the Bengal famine was actually the result of friction b/w the Congress government at Delhi, which wanted to destabilize the muslim League government in Bengal, and therefore used the famine as a weapon. It wasn’t an act by the Brits, who were too busy w/ the war. Problem that Bengal had was that it had competing genocidal forces in control – the Muslim League, that wanted all of Bengal to be a part of Pakistan, vs the Congress, which was a Gandhian Socialist group run by an elitist snob Nehru who was a great admirer of Josef Stalin
Churchill or no Churchill, Bengal wasn’t going to end well
Jim Johnson says
Probably Trumps fault (sarc)!
tgusa says
Most likely Jim. What else could it it be? Make America great for all Americans that love and respect their country…regardless. According to the establishment, that is a no go. No matter what the establishment incessantly attempts to shove down our throats. At the end of the day we all are all Americans. I do believe that the American people have a different opinion from the establishment cult.
Barbara says
The truth is often unpopular.
Churchill once said. “history will speak well of me. I am writing the history”.
Captain Iglo says
@Hindu American: in view of the context (‘surplus bombers’), he must have been referring to Arthur Travers Harris (Cheltenham, 13 april 1892 – Henley-on-Thames, 5 april 1984), who was a British Air Marshall. His nickname was ‘Bomber Harris’, because of the ‘Area Bombing’ tactics on German cities during WWII. The crews of Bomber Command called him ‘Butch’ Harris. Most likely from butcher. There probably was a mix up between Butch and Bert.
tgusa says
Lets be3 clear. In WWII American bombers targeted nazi infrastructure Yes the USA conducted daylight bombing raids. American losses in the campaign were big.,RAF bombers bombed cities at night, to save British lives. get me wrong I have no problem with what the RAF did back in the day, cause I dont.
Barba Rossa says
foul
adjective
1. offensive to the senses, especially through having a disgusting smell or taste or being dirty
Example: a foul odour
Could it have anything to do with hygiene? As in bathing in the Ganges, with corpses all around you?
Or could it have anything to with the following quote?
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
a quote usually attributed to Charles James Napier (sometimes to his brother) and concerning the practice of ‘sati’, or widow burning (alive, that is). I dare say at the very least a rather smelly practice. Quite foul indeed, and most certainly not to be ‘included’.
somehistory says
OT
“Britain will be fully Islamic soon” – Andrew Tate shocks fans by openly calling for the Islamisation of Britain
“Responding to the news of a Muslim billionaire winning rights to turn the Trocadero, one of London’s most famous landmarks, into a mosque, Tate expressed his happiness and had this to say about Islamic culture:
“This building is literally dead centre in the middle of London’s historic centre. Amazing news. The only alternative to Islam for the brits are pride flags as they no longer have any innate culture or patriotisim. Allah is the best of planners and I look forward to seeing The Islamic republic of Great Britistan in her final form. Alhamdulillah Britain will be fully Islamic soon.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-will-be-fully-islamic-soon-andrew-tate-shocks-fans-by-openly-calling-for-the-islamisation-of-britain/ar-AA1e0eJ5?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=499961181c6041e3967c800b3d47cc01&ei=57
Michael Copeland says
“Mosque means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mosques wars should proceed. The Prophet had sword to kill people.”
Ayatollah Khomeini
“Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet”
By Ali Sina, p.51
Captain Iglo says
@ Michael Copeland re ‘mosque’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque:
A mosque (/mɒsk/ MOSK) or masjid (/ˈmæsdʒɪd, ˈmʌs-/ MASS-jid, MUSS-; both from Arabic: مَسْجِد, romanized: masjid, pronounced [ˈmasdʒid]; lit. ’place of ritual prostration’) is a place of prayer for Muslims.[1] Mosques are usually covered buildings, but can be any place where prayers (salah) are performed, including outdoor courtyards.[2][3]
The first mosques were simple places of prayer for Muslims, and may have been open spaces rather than buildings.[4] In the first stage of Islamic architecture, 650-750 CE, early mosques comprised open and closed covered spaces enclosed by walls, often with minarets from which calls to prayer were issued.[5] Mosque buildings typically contain an ornamental niche (mihrab) set into the wall that indicates the direction of Mecca (qiblah)[1] and ablution facilities.[1][6] The pulpit (minbar), from which the Friday (jumu’ah) sermon (khutba) is delivered, was in earlier times characteristic of the central city mosque, but has since become common in smaller mosques.[7][1] Mosques typically have segregated spaces for men and women.[1] This basic pattern of organization has assumed different forms depending on the region, period and denomination.[6]
Mosques commonly serve as locations for prayer, Ramadan vigils, funeral services, marriage and business agreements, alms collection and distribution, as well as homeless shelters.[1][7] Historically, mosques have served as a community center, a court of law, and a religious school. In modern times, they have also preserved their role as places of religious instruction and debate.[1][7] Special importance is accorded to the Great Mosque of Mecca (centre of the hajj), the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina (burial place of Muhammad) and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (believed to be the site of Muhammad’s ascent to heaven).[1]
With the spread of Islam, mosques multiplied across the Islamic world. Sometimes churches and temples were converted into mosques, which influenced Islamic architectural styles.[7] While most pre-modern mosques were funded by charitable endowments,[1] increasing government regulation of large mosques has been countered by a rise of privately funded mosques, many of which serve as bases for different Islamic revivalist currents and social activism.[7] Mosques have played a number of political roles. The rates of mosque attendance vary widely depending on the region.’
So your quote is interesting, but doesn’t stroke with this information. Perhaps our eminent Arabist Mr. Robert Spencer can enlighten us.
rubiconcrest says
You cannot be serious. Relying on Wikipedia to form any opinion on Islam is beyond foolish, it is evil. Why? Because all that wikipedia says is true. The quote you refer to above is also true. Why then did Wikipedia not tell the whole truth?
I see the fangs and claws of Islam when I see a Mosque, you see the tiger’s stripes and it’s wistful tail.
somehistory says
Anyone can write for the wiki. If a monkey could type
mozlums lie like the cheap carpets on which they utter their curses. If a mozlum writes for the wiki, it will not be the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
If the barracks were only places to kneel down and talk to satan there wouldn’t be weapons stored there and they wouldn’t say their curses and what killings they will do
John Smith says
Captain lglo
I’d listen to what Michael Copeland has to say about islam before anything that is written in wikipedia. Michael is an all out expert on islam and has been studying it for years. He has written and published many articles on this subject, so please take notice to what he has to say.
John Smith says
Captain
Wikipedia is sugar coating the truths about islam. But everyone here at JW knows the real truth, and between us we are going to defeat this satanic death cult. We are a very small fledgling movement at the moment but we will rise. Please listen to what Michael Copeland and other people on this site have to say. We only speak the truth.
somehistory says
Yes, Michael Copeland. Thank you for the quotes.
The barracks is for war, just as Mr. Raymond Ibrahim has explained. It’s like a fort built in enemy territory; built to expand islam.
And didn’t the turkeye dictator say it’s a “barracks” and the molzums are the soldiers?
Many of them store weapons and bomb making mateirials.
Nearly 100% of them in the U.S…..several years ago….displayed printed information on making bombs, striking terror, etc.
John Smith says
Somehistory
As you well know, they would always go to the mosque first before they went in to battle. The complete quote by Erdogan goes, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.” Such a saying speaks for itself what islam is all about.
somehistory says
Thank you, John Smith, for the full quote. And it does indeed speak.
Lyle says
Re Andrew Tate: ‘In June, they were charged with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.’ I.e.: low life; bad example.
VictorMc says
Hopefully, as an old Londoner, I will be dead soon.
chelseaboy says
Same here. I feel some comfort knowing I won’t be around to witness the catastrophies of the future. I just hope my children and grandchildren can bear them.
Jocelynn Cordes says
Thank you for this introductory essay. I look forward to the rest. I am also intrigued by the fact that, as you mention, it was Churchill himself who created the expurgated editions. Why?
Larry A. Singleton says
Looking above my desk on the bookshelf; “Why I Am Not A Muslim” and “The Islam in Islamic Terrorism” by Ibn Warraq. Right next to Raymond Ibrahim, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and other books related to Islam.
I keep encouraging people to read Imprimis-Hillsdale College. Big on our Founders, US Constitution & my hero Winston Churchill who predicted the “Gestapo” these “Socialists” would become.
President of Hillsdale Larry P. Arnn has some great articles including his book “Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government”.
Arnn’s book sits right beside my volumes of Churchill’s books The River War (2 volume edition!) and The Malakand Field Force, The Seven Lives of Colonel Patterson by Denis Briann and The Man-Eaters of Tsavo by Lt. Colonel J. H. Patterson.
The Seven Lives of Colonel Patterson by Denis Briann
The Man-Eaters of Tsavo by Lt. Colonel J. H. Patterson
And The Last Lion trilogy by William Manchester.
Reziac says
Just an FYI, the unabridged version is now on archive.org under the titles
Volume 1 1899 First Edition The River War and Reconquest of the Soudan
Volume 2 1899 First Edition The River War and Reconquest of the Soudan
PDFs, 500 and 600 mb.
Also linked from the WIki page.
tgusa says
“Americans will always do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives.”
Winston Churchill