TRAGEDY OF LORD KITCHENER.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 October 1921, Page 12

TRAGEDY OF LORD KITCHENER.

THE FAILURE OF SUCCESS. Viscount Esher’s Brilliant Picture of the Strange Personality of On© of the Great Figures of the War. “The Spirit of the Sand, like the Spirit of the Sea, puts an unconscious constraint upon the nature of man. lx>rd Kitchener’s aloofness, patience, slowness if you will, were the outcome of life lived in solitude, where the passage of time counted for very little. An archaeologist, an excavator and engineer, he learned to make light of the hurried ways of average men. Rome and her four •centuries of dominion seemed a bubble on the surface of a world over which Babylon and the Egyptian Pharaohs had ruled. The slow processes of the Orient were burned into him by the Egyption sun. When he thought of war, it was after the manner of Darius —slow-moving hordes concentrating slowly upon their objective with fatal method. He took no heed of the lightning-stroke of Napoleon. His war against the Mahdi, leading to the capture' of Khartoum and the conquest of the Soudan, was an operation after his own heart. He revelled in the making of the desert railway, in the accumulation of vast stores, ii. the processions of men, ordered like an Egyptian frieze. The battles of the Atbara and Omdurman were episodes, inevitable but tiresome. The rounding up of the Boers, the system of blockhouses, the mathematical precision of a successful raid, interested him greatly. Paardeberg was a horror, necessary perhaps, anfl he mismanaged it.

Throughout his wide and striving life in the East Lord Kitchener had commanded success easily; honors had been showered upon him, and unstinted praise. Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, in 1914 he found himself confronted vzith difficulties from which his whole career had been free. The rush which bad sprung up miraculously in the sands of the desert could not grow on the London clay without mire, and he began to see that in this new and treacherous soil, to which his feet were unaccustomed, they were likely to stick. Great man he was, but not cas; in the greatest mould. He was not like Napoleon or Cromwell, always true to type, as the greatest men of action almost invariably are. Reckoned to be firm and resolute and strong, he was certainly at times all three, but he was often, during the last years of his life, malleable and irresolute.

In the dingy room he occupied at the top of the British Embassy (when on his way to Gallipoli), he stood yith his Lack to the fire while the letters were read aloud to him by Fitzgerald. He was standing with bowed head as he listened, and when he raised it his eyes were full of tears. When he broke the silence he spoke of the dislike felt for him by his colleagues, adding, ‘Asquith is my only friend.’ One present told him that an eminent member of the Cabinet had complained that he was wanting in candour and too fond of v'hat were supposed to be ‘Oriental methods.” He said, quite humbly, ‘Yes. 1 suppose it is so; but 1 am an old man, and I cannot change my habits—it is too late.’

You walked away from Lord K.’s room feeling that, although our system of conducting a great war was misguided and he knew it, yet he was no lenger the _K. of K. qualified to find a remedy. Cromwell was forty-six years of age when he changed the Government of England, and had Lord K. been able to divest- himself of twenty years, had he been the lithe, wiry horseman of the Sudan, the control and course of the war might have taken a different sl»ape. But his finger had grown heavy, his face had lost its outline, he was ex er sixty-five years old.” —Lord Esher, on .Lord Kitchener. KITCHENER AS HAMLET. “Although Viscount has given his book the title The Tragedy of Lord Kitchener (John Murray. 10s net.), he is careful to explain that it is not meant to recall the tragic death of the great soldier-administrator in the stormy Orkney sea. “The purpose of Lord Esher’s volume is to demonstrate that Lord Kitchener was a failure in his administration of the War Office from August, 1914, until his death in June, 1916, and that lx>rd Kitchener realised this terrible ■fact,” says the Telegraph. “This, in brief, is what the book conveys. Lord Esher declares that, in the midst of the greatest task of his life, and while at the summit of a career of fame and success, Lord Kitchener ‘suddenly became aware that the golden bowl was broken The rush which bad sprung up so miraculously in the sands of the desert could not grow in the London clay To the poet’s vision the tragedy of Hamlet lay in the hero’s consciousness of his own irresolution, and not in the holocaust of death amid which the play ends. Lord Kitchener’s tragedy was not dissimilar, inasmuch as he realised that the qualities of mind and character which had served him well through life were, under these entirely new conditions, out of place.’ ” A CROWDED CANVAS. “Small as the canvas is,” says the Times —“the book does not much overrun 200 pages —it is inconveniently crowded with other figures, most of them, notably Sir John French and Sir William Robertson, very carefully drawn, but amongst them all Lord Kitchener maintains his distinction. That is ’iio thanks to the author’s praise, which is Scanty, and. though there are signs that he has a genuine regard for Ins subject, his love is evidenced - mainly by the chastenings. But it is an honest and judicious book.” WHY HE FAILED. “Lord Esher, who knew the first Lord Kitchener well, who represented him in France and corresponded constantly with him. who kept a journal and was hinrself throughout in very close touch with events at the front, in his book, The Tragedy of Lord Kitchener, explains where Kitchener failed and why,*’ says the Mail. “The tragedy, when he took office in 1914 as Secretary for War, lay in this: “ ‘He was no longer the K. of K. of the Sudan and South Africa, and he only as yet was aware of the tragic fact.. ..." The armor of his soul had rusted, he had noted, if others had not, the cor‘roding traces of the passage of years." DID HE FAIL? “Lord Ember’s study of Kitchener’s work and character during tlu‘-x22 months he was Minister for War shows that, in the writer’s opinion, Lord Kit cbener failed in the great task he had undertaken and fully realised the extent o‘ the disaster which had overtaken him. This is what Lord Esher seeks to >ruy* valwine ot two hundred.

odd pages that he has written. Whether history will accept this conclusion time alone can reveal,” says the Telegraph. “To his contemporaries,, with the possible exception of some of his colleagues in Mr. Asquith’s overcrowded Cabinet, and perhaps a few soldiers with whom he came into conflict, Lord Kitciiener, while he lived, was the great outstanding and commanding figure of the war.

“We know from Sir George Arthur’s biography that there were men in the Cabinet in 1915 and 1916 who longed to be rid of Kitchener. His mentality and the circumstances of his career in Egypt unfitted him for the team work which membership -of the Cabinet entails. He had been too long in a position of supremacy and autocracy, where his word was law, to be able to work under conditions where he had to defend his proposals and co-ordinate them in even the prejudices, of other men. AN INTRIGUE TO REMOVE HIM. “When he returned unexpectedly from the Near East in November, 1915, he was shorn of some of his power at the War Office, and colleagues were forced upon him whom he did not desire. ‘They want to use my name and deprive me of authority,’ he complained to an intimate friend, when administrative changes were made at the War Office which lessened his personal control of affairs. But Kitchener felt that he owed a duty to his Sovereign and to the country, and he remained at the post he had undertaken. Perhaps the greatest disappointment his enemies met With was when Sir William Robertson was appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff’.

“ "rhe wish in certain quarters to be rid of Lord K.,’ writes Viscount Esher, ‘had not diminished, but it was hoped that Sir William Robertson would bell the cat.’ This hope was hot realised. The new Chief o fthe Imperial General Staff was too big and too honest a man to play the game of the politicians, whose object in pressing for his appointment Sir William discerned very clearly. He recognised that the nation owed more to Kitchener thhn to any living man for what" had so far been done in the war. SIR WILLIAM ROBERTSON’S LOYALTY. “On February 4, 1916, Sir William Robertson wrote: ‘‘ ‘Where would we be without the New Armies? He was not well served. If they want to be rid of him, why not move him? I imagine they dare not. Apparently I hav£ been a dissapointnient in not knocking him down. But it is no part of a C.I.G.C.’s duty to intrigue againt his S. of S. (Secretary of State). At any rate I won’t. He has been all that could be desired so far as I am concerned?

“Lord Esher tell an interesting anecdote of Sir William Robertson at the time he was appointed Chief of Staff to Sir John French, in succession to General Sir Arhcibald Murray. The Com-mander-in-Chief would have preferred Sir Henry Wilson, but he accepted Robertson, ‘whose rough humor appealed • t.t the Irish element in Sir John? As the new Chief of Staff left Sir John French’s room after their first interview, someone congratulated him on his appointment. ‘Sir William jerked his thumb over his sholder in the direction o r the apartment he had just quitted, and said, “Do you congratulate him?'*’ er.d passed out without another word. TWO IRONSIDES. “Lord Esher thus describes the singular ‘interview’ which took place between Lord Kitchener and Sir William Robertson when the latter was about to be made Chief of the Imperial General Staff. “It took place in France, Lord Kitchener ‘sitting alone, stern and unyielding, at thei table, with nothing before him but a blank sheet of paper. General Sir William Robertson, another typical Ironside, lay in his shirt sleeves ci a bed in his room, a pipe between hi steeth, contending for the principles he believed to be vital if the armies of the heathen were to be. smitten before Israel? Thus the two men comported themselves while proposal and counterproposal were carried to and fro between them by secretaries. When finally an agreement had been arrived at, Kitchener said, ‘I hope Robertson understands that, much as I dislike the plan, now that I have agreed I mean to carry THE SHELL CONTROVERSY. “The really serious efforts to get rid oi Kitchener began in connection with ihe notorious ‘shell controversy’ in 1915. Lord Esher says the effect of that contraversy and its consequences Upon Lord Kitchener’s mind wasjpainful. He states that on May 14 Kitchener wrote: “‘1 am deadly sick of this system of intrigue, and if I get an excuse I shall take it, and get out of it all? Lord Esher saw him that evening sitting alone with Colonel Fitzgerald, ‘ver, quiet, and very gentle, but he looked bkc a wounded animal? As to the merits of the controversy Lord I<itchener appears to have convinced him self, ‘though he failed to convince his colleagues inthe Governments that the clamor over shells and ammunition was exaggerated and wantonly “ ‘lt soon became evident that the over-statement of a good case, and the merciless blows, sometimes below the belt, which characterises the methods of the Northcliffe Press, had roused general indignation against the detractors of the. man who, above all. Englishmen, stood in English eyes as the Paladin of the war?

“Lord Esher makes it clear that the appointment of Lord Kitchener as Minister of War was due to the initiative of. Lord Haldane, then Lord Chancellor, and chat the decision was made before any suggestion with regard to it appeared in the Press. The announcement that Lord Kitchener was to take control of Ihe War Office caused a sigh of relief to be breathed by the whale country? It ‘was felt that here, at all events, the right man was in the right place. WHY HE LOST CONFIDENCE. “ ‘The truth is,’ writes Lord Esher, ‘that Lord K., as he was now called, was no longer the K. of K. of •the Sudan and South Africa, and he only as yet, was aware ofthe tragic fact. Self-reliant, self-sufficing, hatred of the written word, dislike of functions, the habit of verbal orders, were still part of his being, but they were only the ghosts of their old selves. The armor of his soul had rusted; he had noted, if others had not, the corroding traces of the passing years. “‘He glanced roun tdhe WAT Office for help, but could find none. Whitehall had l>een swppl x elean, of soldiers of experience and talent..,, and with the exception of Sir John Cowans, the Q.M.G., he found only ftged and tired n.en who trembled before him and his reputation. He hftd no knowledge of the organisation of the Army or Hu* nuthods of Parliamentary control, and .nil that these thing? mean inthe. ftfinpn-if-tration of a puhlJfl offipp. Iff tips novel sphere ho was cafiled, and lost confid_en«e in huasstf. The

of the situation overwhelmed him, but only his intimate friends guessed what was happening It is true he played his part with unfaltering courage. Even when his conclusions were arrived at upon insufficient data, his instincts, bred of a desert life, were surer than those of his colleagues. At moments his vision could stiff penetrate far, and his famous dictum on the duration of the war was a case in point? LORD MORLEY SAYS “NEVER!” “Here is a final story of how Lord Kitchener, who was anxious to succeed Lord Minto as Viceroy, dined with Lord Morley, who had the nomination. “ ‘Lord Kitchener, either from shyness or pride, shocked the political susceptibilities of his principal host, showed himself at his worst, and ruined in a short hour his prospect of attaining his heart’s desire. That night, supposed to be guarded and silent, he was lush of talk with a copiousness of indiscreet opinion, praise and blame, that made L.ord Morley say afterwards, “Never, never shall he go to Iriflia?” MOMENTS I REMEMBER. “Lord Esher ends his book as follows: “ ‘There are moments in K.’s life which 1 like to remember; his gentleness at Khartoum when he stood on the sjot where Gordon fell; his growing admission to a friend who like him had cried when the Mutiny veterans matched past at Lord Curzon’s Durbar; the tone of his voice when the spoke of

“Birdie”; the joy of battle in his eyes as described by one who saw him in the front trenches at Anzac? ”