KITCHENER'S TRAGEDY.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 August 1921, Page 5

KITCHENER'S TRAGEDY.

A REMARKABLE BOOK. HIS LOSS OF PRESTIGE. A WANING INFLUENCE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. Received August 11, 8.50 p.m. London, August 11. Lord Esher’-s book, “The Tragedy of Lord Kitchener,” was published to-day. The author writes: The title is not evoked by the nature of Kitchener’s death, but is intended to emphasise the tragic spectacle of a great man called to a great task with the full consciousness that the powers which he served steadfastly in the past had deserted him. When Kitchener assumed control he was no longer the Kitchener of Soudan and South Africa, but only he was aware of that fact. Kitchener found at the War Office that all except one were aged and tried men, who trembled before him and his reputation. He was denied help and guidance and in this novel situation he lost his self confidence. His vision was clear, but he was unable to communicate it to others, therefore he was powerless before Cabinet, in which he had no confidence. Accustomed all his life to independent action Kitchener was at a disadvantage in collective action and for this reason his colleagues did not accord him confidence. His steps faltered and his influence waned, so that at the most critical moments he was hurried into action of which he did not approve. He wanted a grajid campaign in the Near East and failure to gain this resulted in delay and m isundersta nding. There is a poignant picture of Kitchener on May 14, 1915, subsequent to the demand for more shell's. Kitchener was disquieted and. wrote: “I am deadly sick of this system of intrigue and if I get an excuse ! will get out of it all.” In this way was the repercussion of events which Lord French has already described,, especially General Repington’s notorious to the Times. Lord Esher continues: “Kitchener sat alone in mufti in a Soudan chair with a quiet, gentle look like a wounded animal. The shell controversy illuminates the man’s strength, weakness and self-abnegation, but displays him as unreceptive of new ideas and disinclined to adopt new methods which he did not originate. He was slow to take advantage of the experience of lesser men. Kitchener’s mediocre reasoning and solid approach to obvious conclusions irritated his colleagues and destroyed the admiration and affection, almost the respect, they once felt for him. Kitchener’s inability to convince them of his sincerity was mortifying. The contrast between the place he knew he occupied in the public esteem and what he knew was the inner mind of his earnest colleagues he vainly tried to influence and guide composed the tragedy.”