SOLDIERS AND POLITICIANS.

Taihape Daily Times, 14 May 1918, Page 3

SOLDIERS AND POLITICIANS.

• o The letter of General Maurice, attacking Mr Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law, is not pleasant reading. It shows that the quarrel between the British GovernnTont and some highjpiaced soldiers over the powers of the Versailles Council was not ended by the resignation of Sir William Robertson. A statement made some weeks ago exhibiting impatience ,at the nonappearance of the French reserves was attributed to General Maurice, who, as Director of Military Operations, was in the confidence and at the right hand of Sir William Robertson as Chief of the General Staff. Now General Maurice has unreservedly, and over his own name, publicly challenged the Prime Minister and Mr. Bonar Law. It is a serious step to take, and could only have been justified under circumstances of extreme gravity. General Maurice explains his action by alleging that statements made by Mr Lloyd George, and Mr. Bonar Law were known by a large number of soldiers to be incorrect, and that this knowledge was breeding such disgust with the Government as could only end in impairing the splendid morale of the troops. We will be better able to estimate the accuracy of this statcmeni? when Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Bonar Law have made their replies, or when the promised inquiry has been completed, but meantime it may be noted that General Maurice’s own action will not tend to strengthen the morale of the army or improve its discipline. Not only, “a large number of soldiers’ but all soldiers will know know that a high-placed officer has deliberately and after duo thought, broken the King’s Regulations. General Maurice has created an ugly precedent which may have far-reaching effects. He has done more; ho has thrown a political fircstick into the trenches which it may be difficult to extinguish. As a soldier General Maurice’s action is defenceless, but he pleads his duty as a •citizen, and in this capacity it will full upon him to show that he wrote wholly for the good of the army and was not actuated by any sectional interest. Similarly it will fall to 'the politicians to justify the speeches which have been so sonsationaly challenged. Wherever the fault may lie the incident is regrettable. The conclusion can hardly be avoided that it is the outcome of a pernicious survivanec of partisan feeling which has spread from British political circles, through the press, to the army. Our soldiers arc fighting for the very life of democracy against a system of militarism 'which threatens to crush every democratic State under its heel. It is deplorable that during a crisis in this fight the British democracy should be involved in a bitter controversy between soldiers and politicians which is at once weakening to ourselves and encouraging to the enemy.