PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 197, 9 May 1918, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Looking to the essential interests of the Empire as a belligerent and all the more in view of the signal proofs that have lately been given of the splendid moral of its armies, it cannot be too much regretted that an officer as highly pla-cea as MajorGeneral Frederick Maurice ha-s seen fit to makean attack upon lead j ing British Ministers which is obviously calculated to do a great deal of mischief both in the Army and in the civil population. This at present is the only aspect of the matter that is really clearly defined. It is plain ■ enough that General Maurice aims at destroying tho faith of the British people in their principal political leaders, and the earnestness with which he is pursuing this object is exemplified in tho fact that he has cast off every obligation of discipline and duty as a soldier. Deciding, as ho has, that "my duty as a citizen overrides my duty as a soldier," he has quite frankly taken a course that can only bo called revolutionary. It has yet to appear that his action is justified, and certainly it could not bo justified on any save the gravest and most serious grounds.

It adds to the gravity of tho existing situation that General Maurice is an officer of high standing. Until a week or two ago he was 1 Director of Military Operations, and his long tenure* of that office implies at once that lie is well qualified to tako a broad view of military affairs, and, as Mr. Bonar Law points out in remarks reported to-day, that he occupied a position of Oie highest confidence. It does not by any means follow that 'his headlong attack is warranted, but bis standing will deepen tho public uneasiness and uncertainty which such an attack is bound to av/aken. Somo ventilation of military affairs and dispositions hitherto veiled now seems practically inevitable, and a brief consideration of tho position will suffice to show that this may militate decidedly against tho interests of Britain and her Allies. It is to bo added that such facts as arc in sight fall distinctly short of justifying General Maurice's somewhat extraordinary outburst.

The late- Director of Military Operations accuses Me. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar , Law of falsehood. He challenges statements made by Mr. Lloyd George on April 9 that tho British Army in France was considerably stronger on January 1, 1918, than it was a year previously, and that there was only one v/hite division in Mesopotamia and three white divisions in Egypt and Palestine, and also a more recent statement by Me. Bonar Law that the extension of the British front in Franco south' of St. Quentin was not dealt with by the Versailles Council. In regard to the strength of white troops in the Turkish theatres no later information is available, than was given by Mr. Lloyd George in the speech referred to, but it may be observed that the fact that the whole matter has been referred for inquiry to two Judges implies that on this point as on others the accused Ministers are confident of their ground. In regard to tho much more important question of the British dispositions in France some information is available, though, it is by no means com-j plete or conclusive. It is to bo noted first of all that an examination of the statement by Mr. Bonar Law which General Maurice has' challenged materially narrows the question at issue. A somewhat full- j or report of the Chancellor's speech i than was cabled at the time appears' to-day. It shows that while Mr. Bonar Law said that tho matter of the extension of the British front was not den It with at all by the Versailles War Council, he sa.id also that the arrangement was a military ono between the British and French military authorities. He denied explicitly that the front was extended contrary to the judgment of Sir William Robertson and Sir Douolas Haig, but he made it perfectly clear that Britain and France were jointly concerned in the matter. It has to be remembered that the extension of the British front was carried out some time before Mr. Lloyd George announced that the Versailles Council had been invested with executive authority, and also that, as far as is known, the authority of the Council developed by stages.

It is particularly important that according to the best available information America has never become a partner to the arrangement conferring both political and military authority on the Versailles Council, though the American Government has from the outset been strongly in favour of a unified Allied command. At tho same time there ia nothing to show that Italy was a full part-

ner to the arrangement at the time to which General Maurice's strictures relate. It soems in the circumstances highly probablo that _ tho agreoment to extend the British front was reached by French and British representatives conferring at Versailles, but not by tho Versailles Council in the exact senso of that term.

In regard, again, to the strength of tho Britieh armies in France in Januarv last as compared with their strength a year earlier, no really clear-cut issue seems to bo raised. General Maurice, as ho is reported, does not expressly deny that the armies were stronger at tho later date. What he does say is that it is incorrect to state that Sir Doualas Haig's fighting strength bad not been diminished on the evo of tho great battle on March 21._ This leaves room for the explanation that while the total British strength in the Western theatre had increased, the force at Sir Douglas ■ Haio's disposal had been diminished by the transfer of part of his reserves to inter-Allied control. It is hardly worth while to pursue theso questions further at the present stage, but one serious fact which obtrudes is that the issues General Maurice has raised cannot be fully cleared up without exposing not only British but inter-Allied dispositions to tho public gazo, and therefore to tho enemy. The only alternative unfortunately seems to be to leavo unanswered charges which must tend to seriously disturb the confidence of the British armies and civilian population in their political leaders. If, as the form of his accusations rather suggests, General Maurice was moved chiefly by a feeling that injustice has been dono to the Army by politicians, it can hardly be held that his motive was adequate. Mb. Lloyd George and his colleagues have been insistent in contending that the strength of the armies has been well maintained, but their chief concern in tho matter has been apparently to rebut the accusations of critics that they have been remiss and have shown lack of foresight in raising and accumulating reinforcements. On this, ground they are perhaps open to criticism, but there is no visible justification for accusing them of aspersing the Army or its commanders, and the line of attack taken by General Maotucß' seems much more likely to lead to unnecessary and unsettling controvorsy than to fortify and strengthen tho national war effort upon which our whole future depends. One rosult threatened is the reopening of the barren controversy in which some British disputants represented tho conditions Involved in the establishment of an inter-Allied command _ as inflicting an intolerable injustice upon tho British Army and its commanders. Sinco tho whole fato of the war visibly depends upon tho loyal co-ordination and concentration of Allied effort, such a development should bo impossible, but it is by no means certain that it will bo avoided.