DARDANELLES REPORT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3025, 12 March 1917, Page 5

DARDANELLES REPORT

SCATHING PRESS COMMENT MR. ASQUITH BLAMED London, March 9. The comment on the Dardanelles Report is mostly of a scathing character, though there is a variety of opinion in apportioning tho blame to individuals. It is generally considered that I the report sheds a disagreeable light on' discussions of the War Council. Attention is mainly directed to the lack of systematic procedure, and also to the ambiguous nature of the status of the experts at the discussions. Most of tho newspapers blame Mr. Asquith for not insisting that the experts should give their views fully end frankly. Some aro not disposed to aci cept the censure' on Lord Kitchener, 'and point out tbat he might be justified in his delay in sending the 2Pth Division.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. KITCHENER'S FORESIGHT SAVED US FROM DISASTER London, March ■. 9. The "Daily Chronicle" expresses regret at tho publication of the Dardanelles report in war time, because essential facts and material features have had to bo withheld, making seriously for injustice. The "Daily News" says that v/hatever blame attaches to Lord Kitchener, the fact icmains that his foresight and dominant personality saved Britain from irretrievable disaster in this war. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. DEBATE ON THE REPORT London, March 9. Mr. Asquith is to ask the Government whether it will grant a day for discussion of the Dardanelles report and publish tho evidence. It is understood that a debate will be permitted, but it is unlikely that the evidence will bo published without careful editing.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.-Reuter. BITTER PARTY FEELING VERY SEVERE CRITICISM (Kec. March 10, 6.55 p.m.) London, Maroh 9. The Dardanelles report (as led to an outbreak of bittor newspaper' party feeling. Tho "Evening News" demaads tho impoachraent of tho old gang. The "Pall Mall Gazette" fays the report reveals the type of organisation which was doomed to detent even 'villi a- fair beginning and the best of fortune. Punishment for such an inept system was inevitable.. The "Westminster Gazctto" asks why experts should attend War Councils if they are not to speak, and how they could keep silent if they differed materially from the views expressed is not understandable. Mr. Asquith's only possible infereuco was that the experts thought the operations pos-sible.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.