GENERAL GODLEY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3167, 18 August 1917, Page 7

GENERAL GODLEY

4 PLAIN TALK IN PARLIAMENT : "UNCONCEALED HOSTILITY " THE REQUIREMENTS OF A GOOD OFFICER | An outspoken criticism of General Godley was given to the House of Representatives'yesterday by Mr. C. J. Parr, who was one of the Parliamentary delegation to visit England aud the front- last year. "In my opinion," said Mr. Parr, "it is a most unlurtunalo thing for this country that General Godley should still command oua - Army at the front. 1. knew before 1 went to England last year, as we all did, that the General was unpopular with the returned soldiers. Indeed. I have heard of only one or two apologists for him among the returned men, and almost invariably they were gentlemen who had received favouirs at his hands. Ninety per cent, at least of the officers and nien who have returned I all say hard things. Last year 1 had the opportunity of talking with hundreds of men and many officers, not only at the front, but in the bases, in the camps, and in tho hospitals. Everywhere I found the same feeling. The General possessed neither tno regard nor the respect of Wβ men. There was a. feeling of unconcealed hostility towards him, and bitter dislike, among all ranks. This feeling of intense dislike was not new. It. began in Egypt, grew under the- experiences of Gallipoli, and has become even stronger in I'iance and England. I would not mention the subjeot at all but that I am convinced that the Government ought to take notice and not ignore this thing. (Hear, hear.) This feeling against the General is universal, persistent, and I think ineradicable. I heard of various causes assigned for it; but I am not concerned with that aspect. That may become a matter for inquiry by tho Government. What I am concerned about is the fact that there is an undoubted widespread hostility throughout the whole of the Army to the General. This feeling :s not merely ephemeral, but has persisted lor three years.

"I feel sure that a difficulty of some kind might have arisen, but for the fact that we have been served by two excel-lent-officers in Generals Russell and Richardson in England unci FraJice—(hear, hear)—who are immediately under General Gpdley, and who do all the rough spade work. One cannot speak too highly of their services. They possess not only the respect, but the warm esteem of their various commands. There is much the same spirit for them us tlie Australians hnve for General Birdwood. "Among many things Hint one the front niny I mention one only which gives offence to our ynu/nj? ana promising officers. General Godley commands tho New Zealand Army, and he ought to give a chance to promising New Zealanders to learn staff work. But I think there is only one New Zealander on his staff. This staff work is most important. Our boys should be given a chance to learn it. (Hear, hear.) Tho Minister of Defence the other day, replying to a question onthis matter, did not meet the point. He said that General Godley commanded a British Army Corns, and that ae he and Us staff were paid by the Imperial' Government, the Minister left the inference that we could not interfere with the selection by General Godley of only young Englishmen on his staff, and that the General need not appoint New Zealanders at all to hie staff. Sir James Allen's reply overlooks the fact that the New Zealand Division is onethird of General Godley's Army Corps, and at Wet a third of his staff ought to be New Zealandens. General Godley further owes all his recent titles and decorations to the fact that he is the Commander of the New Zealand Army, and in common fairness he should give NewZealand men the first show for these positions, instead of excluding them in favour of youmg Englishmen of good family connections. This is the sort of , tiling which galls our men., Further, thn recommendations for titles and honours and promotions made by the Coraman-der-in-Ohief have in many instances civen keen dissatisfaction at the front. The only excuse I have heard when the admitted, universal vm popularity of the High Command is alleged is thnt lie stands well with the War Office and must bo a good soldier. I admit General Godley has always exercised great tact and diplomacy in dealing with his superiors. Ti half that tact and diplomacy were exercised in dealing with tho rank and file there would be less complaint. (Hear, hear.) I deny that he is a good soldier or a good commander. No officer can be a good commander who succeeds in antagonising the whole of the men under him. I do not care how good a military tactician a man may be (and- officers at Gallipoli, if they were allowed to speak, would have something to say on this aspect) or how excellent his technique, if he lacks the human qualities or sympathy and understanding and approachablenesa he will he a complete failure in dealing with men. What a difference in the case of General Birdwood, and the feeling towards him! However, I eliall not make comparisons. I wish simply to pu,t the position as regards the High Command. After what I saw at the front—and I went there as a public man, the representative of the Parliament of New Zealand—l should be a craven cur if I sat still and said nothing. ■ "To-summarise: I 6ay, first. General Godley possesses neither the esteem nor even the respect of his officers or men. Secondly, further, thero is a feeling of undisguised hostility which is universal and persistent, and apparently irremovable. Thirdly, such being the case, the Minister of Defence ought not to ignore it; he ought to take steps to have General Godley promoted to some other command, and have the Anzacs reunited, under General Birdwood. (Hear, hear.) Ouii' glorious comradeship with the Australians at Gallipoli should be perpetuated, and overy New Zealander would fight with much more satisfaction were he under'the Australian General, who is beloved by all ranks for hjs human qualities.-" . (Applause.)

A Defender. Mr. R. M'Callum, who visited the New Zealand Army- while it was quartered in Egypt, rebuked Mr. Parr for his "unwarrantable attack on a high Imperial officer." General Godley was not under the control of the New Zealand Government, but under the Imperial Government It was perhaps true that General Godley was unpopular with his officers. Mr. Parr: And -with ,the whole Army. ' Mr'M'Callum: "He is not unpopular with the whole Army. That is a gross exaggeration." He went on to say that it was General Godley's zeal for the welfare of the men in his command that made him unpopular with some of his officers. There wae occasional talk among tho men about General Godley, but a lot of this was encouraged by officers who did not like the General, and there were men ; who talked about General Godley who had never met him, and had no chance of ever meeting him. He thought it was exceedingly regrettable that this attack had been made on a very worthy officer.