Winston Churchill on Kitchener.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2678, 5 January 1900, Page 3

Winston Churchill on Kitchener.

The London correspondent of the Dunedin Star, writing on November IBth, treats of “The River War’’ a book on the late Egyptian war by Mr Winston Churchill (son of the late Lord Randolph Churchill) who has had some experiences in Natal lately. The correspondent saysi ‘The River War’ would have caused a big sensation had it come out six months ago, when all England was struggling to fete Lord Kitchener. Mr Churchill admires the great soldier’s professional abilities, but frankly accuses him of gross inhumanity. Fortunately, or unfortunately, bis bombshell has exploded harmlessly. Kitchener and Co. are temporarily dead as Queen Anne. We only care for Buller and White. What Kitchener did or didn’t do is now only ■of the mildest interest. Mr Churchill discounts “the glory of Omdurman” by saying, ’’The mind turns with disgust front the unequal slaughter,” apd rebukes the Sipdar for not publishing orders against the killing of Dervish wounded in cold blood. The Sirdar allowed the impression to prevail that the fewer prisoners the better. There had been so much talk of “avenging Gordon”} the Dervishes had been so much described as wretches unfit to live, that the crueller of the men, especially the Soudanese and Egyptians, treated the wounded as vermin. Mr Churchill also charges the Sirdar with callousness with regard to the British wounded. He reduced the medical staff to insignificant proportions, and several died of wounds under such circumstances inevitably neglected. The General, who never spared himself, cared little for others. He treated all men like machines —from the private soldiers, whose salutes he disdained, to the superior officers he rigidly controlled. The comrade who had served with him and under him for many years in peace and peril was flung aside incontinently as soon as he ceased to be of use. The Sirdar only looked to the soldiers who could march pud fight. Tfle WQUndpfl Egyptian, and latterly the wounded Britishs oldier did not excite his interest, and of all the departments of his army the one neglected was that connected with the care of the sick and injured. The lamentable episode of the Mahdi’s tomb has already been noticed. The stern and unpitying spirit of the commander was communicated to his troops, and the victories which marked the progress of the River War were accompanied by acts of brutality not always justified by the harsh customs of savage warfare. The supplies for the sound were not so satisfactory as we were led to suppose. Colonel Rhodes, in a foot-note says:— “The spectacle of a British brigade sitting down within striking distance of the enemy, manufacturing their ammunition, with the soles dropping off their boots, would make one laugh if it were not so serious.” Mr Churchill gives an unpleasant account of the “long, petty, and miserable disagreement” between the fbdjan brjgade apd the Sirdar and hi 3 staff. It seems clear that Lord Kit: chenor, jealous of losing a particle of credit, treated Colonel Egerton very ungenerously : “It is mournful to tell how this gallant brigade, which landed so fpll p£ high hope and warlike enthusiasm, and which was certainly during the summer thp most mobile and efficient force in the Soudan, wns reduced in seven pxonths to the sullen band who returned to Ipdia wasted by disease, embittered by disappointment, and inflamed by feelings of resentment and envy." It is pot pleasant to read that “the Egyptian authorities terminated a policy pf studied slights by neglecting to give the farowel salute, which the customs and courtesies of military service prescribed,” when

the last ship, with the headquarters staff, sailed from Suakin.