The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1919. THE WINNERS OF THE WAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10278, 13 May 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1919. THE WINNERS OF THE WAR

Hitherto we have been under the impression til at the war was won by the Allies, pulling together with the utmost weight in the power of each one. JSach member of the Alliance was content to so believe, and to extend the belief in even, united, all-round effort to all tho details of the co-operative work in the many fields of tho war. Of that work it is the custom of all who have done the British share of this work, from the commander of the British armies down ■ to the rank and file, to de-, clare that such steadiness of united effort, unmarred by any shade of misunderstanding, was never before seen in the conduct of Allies in war. The only disturbance to this pleasant belief is a recent post-war creation. It is to bo found in Marshal French’s accounts of serious differences between himself and tho French, command dating so far back as the opening of the retreat from Alons. The Marshal, developing the point’ declares that Lord Kitchener backed up tho French command, and pretty plainly declares that in the confiict that followed Lord Kitchener admitted his error and went back to-Lon-don without further attempt at interference. Lord Kitchener’s biographer answers this with what is virtually a flat contradiction, and the military men in Parliament have gone so far ns to demand the application of disciplinary methods to the case of Lord hrench. This prevents the acceptance of tho statements in the gallant viscount’s book until the matter has been further discussed —as it is sure to be and with considerable heat. For the present, however, it is unnecessary to disturb the general belief in the comfortable mutual relations of the Entente armies in the field. As to the other belief—the belief in the principle of equal merit all round for sharing the credit of tho great victory —one cannot but feel that it has received a shock from the statement of Mr Lloyd George’s Parliamcnary Secretary. “Britain,” said this gentleman, speaking in praise of the Dominion representatives, ‘ ‘appeared to bo the only one of tho Allied countries who had not claimed to have won the war.” Now, the greater part of this message is such palpable nonsense ns to show how very badly the speech was summarised for cable transmission. The fault is much to bo regretted, because the Parliamentary Secretary appears to have made a great effort to give a good testimonial to the overseas British representatives, whoso work at the Conference, he said, had not heon duly appreciated. Tho error cannot bo repaired till the printed reports arrive in duo course of mail. But it is possible now to discuss the Secretary’s statement —that Britain is tho only ono of the Allies not claiming to have won the war —and all that is implied by it. , The statement means that all the greater Allies but Britain are claiming the chief credit for tho winning of the war. Kach Power can easily bo indicated—France, Italy, America — and the basis of the claim in each case is easily guessed, . The first is, of course, "that tho French armies bore the brunt of the land fighting for the first two years; the second, that in the opening days tho neutrality of Italy saved the rear of the Allied armies on the Marne from disastrous assault, while, later, the co-operation of tho Italian forces by sea and land was decisive; the third being that hut for the entry of America the defection of Russia would have been followed bv the utterly disastrous defeat of the Entente Powers.. Now. there is a certain amount of truth in each of these throe supposititious claims. It is, wc think, unlikely that there is anything more in agy ol the statements made by

any of our Allies than a fair’claim to credit for good work well done. But it appears from the Secretary’s remark that there may be claims to something more. It becomes necessary, therefore, in justice to our own people, to indicate the very important share taken by Britain in the war. At the very outset there is the work of the British Navy. But for the prompt action of that powerful the war would have ended before the date of the battle of the Marne. But for the continued action of that force, the war could not have been maintained by the Entente, If that force had failed to beat the U-boats, the Entente would have lost the war. Without the British sea-power the Entente could not have won. But the British did not confine their activities to the sea. They were accused of wanting to do so, according to their usual manner, as alleged by certain critics. But they raised armies on the Continental scale, and they became a military power on the Continental scale. Their armies did many great feats, which are now familiar as household words. What they did in the last great fight for victory their commander has put into unmistakable words; months of epic fighting the British armies in Franco have brought to a sudden and dramatic end the great wearing-out battle of the past four years.' 1 This implies that in the opinion of Sir Douglas Haig the British Army struck the great central blow which ruined the German forces of the West, drove them out of the occupied territories, and compelled their chiefs to beg for an armistice. This is not a claim to have won the war. But it is a claim for recognition of valuable service among the services that joined in the obtaining of victory. When Britain is the only Power ‘ that does not claim the sole credit, it is well to add this lost feat of the British arms to the record of service begun by the Navy. It is not necessary to claim more than our due. But to remain silent with less is unthinkable. At tbe same time justice must bo done to all other claims. As we have said, the service of each Power was an indespensablo service. Without the arms of Franco and the military genius of France the war could not have been won. Without the powerful campaigns of the Italian Army the war could not have been won. Without the British Navy' and the British armies the war could not have been won. All these services were co-operative and interdependent. No one Power can therefore claim the chief credit for winning the war. ’ The American claim must also have full justice. .It cannot bo aimed that the American intervention was decisive. It balanced the Russian defection. It supplied the necessary force at tbe striking point. It furnished moneys and munitions and bruin, power. Moreover, the vast preparation, speeded up with the most tremendous, and the most skilful energy, cannot bo too highly recognised. Nevertheless, the fact is obvious and unforgettable that without the co-operation of tho other Allies the American effort would not have succeeded. Without tho American strength the war could not have been' won by the Allies. It was the deciding factor, of course. But the cardinal fact of the war, nevertheless, is that the victory was due to all the Powers of the Entente side, not to any single Power exclusively. To claim exclusive credit for any, one. Powr or would be against the facts of history. It would be as absurd as invidious, and, what is worse, it would disturb the general unity which is even more necessary for the purpose of peace than it was for the purpose of war.