The Army We Deserve

New Zealand Listener, Volume 7, Issue 163, 7 August 1942, Page 3

The Army We Deserve

E print on another page three letters commenting on our review of Bless ’Em All, a recent book about the British Army; good letters, well written and well argued, and presenting a point of view that should never be forgotten. We regret that we have not the space (in this issue) to print more than three, since the subject is of front-rank importance. Although the Army has never been Britain’s first line of defence, and is not yet the last line, it depends very largely on its efficiency whether the war lasts for two more years or for ten. So far it has not been efficient, if efficiency meanswinning battles. We agree with our correspondent A.M. that for this it is not wholly to blame, We civilians are to blame, we voters and taxpayers who in peace-time starved it and laughed at it, and now in war-time expect miracles from it. It is the army it is because it has not had time to grow into the army it ought to be. At the best it is three years old, much of it younger. The army that went to France returned disarmed and disorganised. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the whole process of training and equipping the armies on which we depend to-day began after Dunkirk. On all these points we agree with our correspondents and could even feel amazed at their moderation. But the question is not whether there is something to be said in the Army’s defence. It is whether the Army is equal to its terrible responsibilities, and if it is not, whether it is taking the best steps to, reach that point. The author of Bless ’Em All exaggerates its weaknesses, deliberately, and occasionally perhaps with some lack of responsibility. But when everything possible has been allowed for his irreverence his strictures remain. There is still too much caste in the Army, too much ignorance, and too much stupidity. Too much time is wasted on things of negligible importance. It is far too readily assumed that every soldier knows what he is fighting for and that all soldiers have the same long-distance aims. If it makes "painful reading" to emphasise such things it would be shameful cowardice to gloss them over. An army is good when it stops and overwhelms its adversary, To apologise for it when it does the opposite of this is a dangerous pastime for a nation at war,