The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1920. THE REALITIES OF WAR.

Southland Times, Issue 18816, 8 May 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1920. THE REALITIES OF WAR.

When an extract from Sir Philip Gibbs’s work “Realities of War” was cabled to thia country, the opinion was expressed that the sweeping condemnation of the British. Regular officer contained in. the wonfa of the famous journalist would probably he toned down considerably .when the sentences were nead with their context. An examination of his book reveals that whSe the extract in itself was accurate and did not say more than the writer intended, the effect at has statement must be qualified by the angle from which he viewed his subject and his later remarks. We ore apt to regard the journalist as a man of iron, whose nerves are sufficiently strong to keep him from allowing sentiment to nn away with his judgment. With Sir Philip Gibbs this deeeriptioa is only partly true. Where he has to deal with facts he My nets them down honestly; but he is evidently a man with sensitive feelings, a man in whom a love of his fallow beings is strongly rooted, and his book “Readties of War” shows dearly that these realities played havoc with him. He fah to the depths of his son! the tremendous crime of the slaughter of young manhood,, .the awful torture of war's honors, the immensity of the price that the world was paying to buy freedom from militarism. From the day that he first saw the shell-torn dead, staring up to. toe cold sky and huddled shapelessly in the war-ridden fields of France, he was on toe rack, and he resented it with the fervour of a man who holds hmnan life as the moot predoo: thing that the world knows. The fact that he fait eo peignnatly made him write in wonderful words of toe achievements, the sufferings arid the losses of toe soldiers in the field, and the British Empire owes him a deep debt for toe service he gave it at great coat to himself, but there can be little doubt tost when one approaches the deductions he has drawn from what he has Been, the enminmabsm of the man must be iskea into account. From the outset Gibbs believed that the anonymous war was wrong, and events proved that he was right, not from toe point of view of toe journalist, but because “a nation which wan sending all its area to the Field of Honour, desired with a deep poignant craving to know how these boys of theirs were living and how they were dying; and what suffering was theirs, and what they had against their enemy, and how it was going with toe war which was absorbing all toe energy and wealth of the people at home”. The “soltSerß of the old Behoof" could not understand this and Gibbs wrote down his estimate of their intelligence accordingly. Then at last cane toe change, but the Regular officers mistrusted the “writing fallows” and did not trouble to hide their mistrust, Gibbs describee some of these events and his words still contain bitterness. He had a poor opinion of G.H.Q. —too “CSty of Beautiful Nonsenee” he calls it—and he breaks out into genuine anger when he sees the headquarters of toe Commander-in-Otief set in tranquil surroundings, peaceful and happy, while men are being mangled up in toe front litres. The sight of a young Staff Ofieer going off to an hour's famwk maddens him. to drawing a bitter contrast with the soldiers knee deep in mud. knd, yet, bow else could G.H.Q. be situated in modem- warfare? What has he said about the men at Headquarter* who from exhaustion at their work, men who had withstood toe rigours of mtia in the trenches? The New Army was not resentful of the newspaper man’s —lt was new and in new condi-tions—-and Gibbs reciprocated the New Army's faefinga. The Old Army changed, but Gibbs newer forgave it for its lack of initial discernment. Ho was particuiariy hard upon them when they were in the higher commands. They made mistakes—what general doce not?—but he wprfwl aomrthaag that was nationally almost impossible. “Among them," be says of oar generals, “there was not one whose personality had that mysterious but essential quality of gnat i^nerehiup—inspiring large bedim of men with exalted eothuatasm, deration and fato. It did not matter to toe men whether an Army Commander, a Corps Commander, or a Divisional Commander stood in the rowhade to watch them march part on. their way to battle or on their way brafc. They saw one of those sturdy men in hw *brw hat" with his ruddy face and white moustache, but no totfi passed down their ranks, no hoarse ehser brake from them because be was there, as when Welsat on his white horse in toe Peninnolw War, or as wfaen Napoleon saluted fare Old Guard, or even as wfaen Lord Roberta, < Our Bobs’ came perched like a little falcon on hia big charger.” Yet Frederick Coleman spoke of men cheerfully fairmg their general that they were not downhearted, and of a grizzled Divisional; Commander crying as they passed lam on toe roadside after Le Catena! Gibbs himself supplies the answer to his complaint that no personality of the type he required appeared on toe Western Front, or an any treat for that' matter. “Nine out of ten mm Iq ton raaks did net know the name

of their ..Army General' or of the Gbipe Commander.” The conditions of modern warfare mako : . the old -tinselled - and her flagged chivalry impossible. It must not be thought that his chapter on "Observers and Commanders” is all condemnation. He gives the British Staff Officer credit for much, but he. blames him- for lack of elasticity and inability' to 'suit himself to new conditions. Neuve ChapeUe, Festubert and Loos, in 1915 are quoted as examples of.at tacks where our staff work was "ghastly,” but they took place under conditions of munition supply and men supply which put . them in a category quite by themselves. He admits that “After ail, our generals had to - learn their lesson, like the private soldier, in conditions of warfare which had never been, known before.” That is the experience of all wars. It is impossible in peace to reproduce the conditions of warfare, and as a result - every war finds . the ? army, organisation adapting itself, after costly experience, to meet new tactical requirements. It must be . remembered that Sir Philip Gibbs in bis attack on the “canary brained” officers was referring to the product of the Staff College, and yet many battalion officers, hundreds ' and hundreds of them, came through that ' college. - They made and moulded the Old Army, and that must mitigate anything he says of their lack of ability. Their manners are “another pigeon,”—we. most . allow for differing standards whenever we criticise the etiquette of someone else. Even Gibbs sees it. We find him later in' his book, - limiting his criticism extensively and writing that “Even before peace came German generals paid. ungrudging tributes to the. efficiency of our Regular Army, writing down in their histories of the war that tins was the model of all armies, the most perfectly trained. . . . .” The officers who trained that army trained the New Armies. And then comes his further tribute to the Regular officer: 1 He was a gentleman whose touch of arrogance was subject to a rigid code of • honour which made him' look to the comfort of his men first. . . . to his own physical needs lost. He had the stem ■ sense • of justice of a Roman j centurion and his men knew that though he would- not spare them punishment if guilty,' he would give them always a fair hearing, with a point in then - favour, if possible. It' was' their code to take the greatest risk in time of danger, to be scornful of death in'the face of -their men, whatever secret fear they' had, and to be proud and jealous of the honour • of the regiment. In -action men found them good to follow—better than some of the younger officers of the New Army, who had not the same traditional pride, nor the same instinct for command, nor the some consideration for their men, though more easy-going and human in sympathy. There it may be left. Sir Philip is against the "brass hats” and the experience of all armies was the same —the men in the fighting lines grew to hate the Red Tabs. And Sir Philip Gibbs, out of his love for the fighting- men, adopted their viewpoint, without necessarily being fair. But’he does not condemn the Regular Officer in globo as the cabled summary suggested.