"COCKTAILS BEFORE TEA."

New Zealand Listener, Volume 5, Issue 112, 15 August 1941, Page 4

"COCKTAILS BEFORE TEA."

Sir-In a recent issue of The Listener there appeared an article entitled " Cocktails before Tea" from the pen of "A member of the Forces," which calls for some comment. In the first place, it is surprising that in these times of national effort you should permit the publication of an article obviously intended to belittle the efforts of the Home Guard to do their part for the defence of the country. After the first three quite incomprehensible paragraphs, the author proceeded to describe the afternoon’s work of a Home Guard unit. His gibe that behind the company "two youths of the district lounged against a post smoking" is unworthy, for the "two youths" happened to be in the near. seventies, and

although a bit shaky, both are game to fill a gap if need be. The only other person present 6utside the ranks was a stranger whom Kipling would possibly have described as "sort of a bloomin’ parumphrodite soldier and civvy too,’ dressed as he was half in His Majesty’s uniform and half in civilian clothes. There is one other point. The article states that "none" of the Home Guard "had ever seen anything more mechanised than a plough behind a tractor." Should the author ever pay us another visit -we extend a hearty invitation-the Returned Soldier members will be pleased to dispel his ignorance.

HOBNAILS AND SHOTGUNS

(Scargill).

Sir,-The article "Cocktails Before Tea" which appears in your issue of July 25 is misleading and mischievous. What military experience your contributor has had I do not know. My own experience includes two and a half years overseas during the Great War. During the latter days of my service in France I carried out the duties of a platoon sergeant with reasonable efficiency. I am a member of the Scargill Home Guard and I am proud of my unit. I serve in the ranks and I am not ashamed of my comrades,

Our O.C. to whom your contributor refers as "Lieutenant the Grocer" served overseas in the Great War, was awarded the M.M., and attained the rank of first-class warrant officer while still -in his early twenties. The officer who lectured on tankhunting served in France as an officer during the Great War. To any intelligent person his lecture was both interesting and instructive. Your contributor shows his own ignorance of the subject when he accuses our officer of misnaming the ammunition demonstrated. Some weeks ago we were honoured by a visit from two qualified instructors from Burnham. After putting us through our company drill these gentlemen complimented us on our showing. Afterwards when visiting another unit, they spoke in praise of the Scargill Home Guard. Your contributor’s reference to our ignorance of anything more mechanised than a tfactor and plough is insulting. Some of us had the privilege of a closeup view,of the first tanks that ever went into action nearly twenty-five years ago. -6/4320 (Scargill). These letters have been referred to the writer of the article, ’ who makes ‘the following reply: I am honestly sorry if any Home Guardsman thought he was "‘belittled" by that article of mine you printed on July 25. I can only conclude that the persons who wished to protest against it were too personally sensitive about the general deficiencies I listed so accurately. ; If they will be good enough to read it again, I hope they will notice that I began, after the first three "quite incomprehensible paragraphs,’ by reporting the actual facts about the difficulties under which the Home Guard has been called up to work; no uniforms, no arms, no expenses, no training equipment. I then described how well they managed without outside support, and tried to indicate by mentioning the local storekeeper, the women of the district, and the storekeeper’s lorry, how everyone in the district seemed to be rallying round to make the best of the opportunities available. And I concluded with no fewer than 75 words which stated as plainly as I could make them that it was "astonishing" that "so many men could do so much with so little; so often yet with so little practical support." I even reported the fact that the Home Guard in the district of which I wrote gets better support than the now defunct football club. I hope the first correspondent is now clear that it was not my intention to belittle his unit, but to praise ity and that any small belittling I triéd to do was at the expense of a Nation which permitted the citizens to offer themselves for such poor recognition. It now seems that this disgraceful position is to be corrected. If there remains, after the reorganisation, anything in the Home Guard which seems to deserve criticism, I hope that I shall be able to make it without self-conscious victims of inefficiency ,taking my words to themselves in this regrettable fashion. A point of accuracy arises from your correspondent’s unreasonable attempt to belittle someone who was trying to do him«the favour of bringing his grievances before a sadly unenlightened public: The "two youths" were not standing behind the company, as ‘" Hobnails and Shotguns" claimed. They were in front of the company, and just behind the company commander and his officers. They were leaning against a tennis net t, on the southern sideline of the southernmost tennis rt, and they were smoking. I noticed the older men, and their presence added to the admiration I had, and expressed, for the excellent attendance. As for the " parumphrodite soldier," he was dressed entirely in his own personal property. I regret that I overlooked the fact that returned soldiers would have seen tariks. e letter. from 6/4320 contains a mis-representation of the statements in my article. This correspondent implies that I attacked a Home Guard lecturer because, for interest’s sake, I stated that the Molotov Cocktail, so-called, was inaccurately named by everybody in the British Empire. Similarly, he implies that I adversely criticised a commanding officer because he happened to be a grocer. If there has been any derogation, it has come from these correspondents, who suggest that it was improper for me to tell a truth which, to anyone less snobbishly sensitive, would be accepted as praise of an officer who applied all his spare time and many’ of his personal resources to the betterment of his unit. The parade drill was nothing but proof that the Home Guard should not try to develop toy soldiers. So who cares if two Burnham instructors did use flattery to purchase Ammunity from attack by this so belligerent district?

THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE