GENERAL GODLEY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3170, 22 August 1917, Page 5

GENERAL GODLEY

♦ AND MR. PARR'S CRITICISM

REPLY BY SIR JAMES ALLEN CHARGES CATEGORICALLY DENIED Oil .Friday last, in Hie House of lieprefcuntatives, the member for Eden (Mr. C. J. Purr) told tho House of lteprescnwlivcs in plain terms some of liie reasons why lio thought General Godley ought not to remain in command of the New Zealand Expeditionary force. t Ihe Minister of Defenco (Sir James Allen) replied to those statements last night. "The honourable member for Eden," Ito said, "made what seomcl to iuo an unjustifiable attack oil General Godlev, the Commander of tho New Zealand Expeditionary Force. As tho attack lias been made in Parliament, I deem it jny duty as Minister to reply to it. Tho honourable gentleman, so far as I can make out, has based his attack on no very good foundation, except, perhaps, rumour and talk that he has heard from soldiers and officers at liio front. I think it would hare been oetter if lie "had gone straight to General Gudloy r.nd told him what ho had heard, rather than mado this attack here, when General Godley is many thousands of miles away, and unable to reply oven if ho wished do so.

Such Attacks Dangerous. "I want to call tho honourable gentleman's attention to this fact, that unless he. is. quite sure of his ground an attack • of this kind should not havo '.Ken made, because it is subversive of discipline. May I ako invito tho Houso l o realise that discipline in an anny to-day, or at any time, is essential, if we wish lo Rave life. If discontent is bred iu this way. and disloyalty to commanders, without sufficient ground, then I say it may lead to unnecessary loss of life through lack of discipline. X want to remind the honourable member, and all iionou.-ahle members—and tho country generally will agree with me—that some fow jeurs ago ? Gonera! Godley camo to New Zealand for \ loro invitation of Lli 1 ) \ Government of New Zealand. Ho camo \heivs to heli> us lo bring into operation our Territorial scheme, and the opinion at that time was, and is now, universal, that he acted then with great tact and ability, never sparing himself. . .'. "Tho honourablo gentleman on Friday night mado use of this expression: 'General Godley. had exercised great tact and diplomacy in dealing with his superiors.* The suggestion in that is that he had used his tact and diplomacy for his own purposes, to gain honours and distinction for himself.. I think this reference to General Godley is at least ungenerous, in view nf the services he rendered to New Zealand, and if it means that he used tact to hia superiors in order to gain advantage for himself—it is more than ungenerous.

Mr. Parr: "Would you deny it 'Sir James Allen: I would deny it. I do deny it. _Wo know cf his tact hero in dealing with local authorities, and indeed everybody he met with in the development of the Territorial soheme when ho camo lieTO first. Sir, I do not think these allusions are very honourable; certaintly to my mind they ore not just. "Now what about thoee honours? Tho honourable gentleman said that General jfiodley owed all his recent titles and decorations to the fact that ho was 'Commander of the New Zealand Army. 'But does he? The only honour that General Godley has received that was re. commended by tho New Zealand Govern, ment was the honour given liim before 3ie left these shores, and none other. He Jia'9 never been Tecomraended for any nther honour by the Government or any. Wlv else in New Zealand so far as I iknow. The honours that havo come to ihim at the front havo come to him by recommendation from his superior officers. Tho honourable member for Eden lias set himself up as a better judge na to whether General -lodley had justly earned these honours and as to hia power to command r-n army or an army corps than tho higher authorities at tho front and the "War Office in England.

Honours for Our Men. "With regard to theso honours it is Suggested—not by tho honourable gentleman, but the suggestion has been made, •i nd' I propose to reply to it—that tho distribution of honours to tho New Zealand Expeditionary Forco has not been fair and equitable compared with tho bestowal of honours on Australians and others. I proposo to put on record the honours gained by tho New Zealand Expeditionary Forco, I don't proposo to make comparisons.' Honourable members ■will Tealise when tho list is read that ! Now Zealand has nothing to bo ashamed of, and that on tho contrary New Zealand has something to be proud of, and that those who command our forces at itho front havo not neglected either officers or nion. From the commencement nf tho war to August 18, 1917, the following orders. decorations, and medals have been won by members of tho New Zealand Expeditionary Force:—Victoria Cross, 3: K.C.R., 1 : K.C.M.G., 1; C.8., 6; C.M.G., 25; D.5.0., 02; Military Cross, 1110; Eoval Red Cross. Ist class, 4; 2nd class, 10; It.C.M., 123; Military Medal, 500; bar to Military Medal, 5; Meritorious Service Medal,- 11; brevet rank, 6s mentioned in dispatches, 413; total, 1333. -French decorations: ~egion of Honour, 7; Croix do Guerre, 10; Medaille Militaire, 5; total, 22. Russian decorations: Order of St. Stanislaus, 3rd class • with swords), 1; Cross of St. George, 3rd class, 1; Medal of St. George (2nd, 3rd, and 4th class), 5: total. 7. Serbian decorations: Order of the White Bayle, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, «nd sth 'class (with swords), 10; Order of KaraGeorge, 3rd and 4th class (with swords), 2: Gross of Ivarageorgo. Ist and 2nd ■class (with swords), 4: gold medal, 6silver medal, G; total, 28. Italian decorations: Silver medal, 1; bronze medal, 4: •W 5 - Montenegrin decorations: Order T' 1 ? / I "'' «h, and sth class, 3; grand total, 1398.

.A', 1 '- : Can >"ou give ns the ranks of the men ?

Sir James jVllcn: I am afraid I have Slot those details. . .

Mi- Rut: How many recommendations inave been turned down? Sir ,Tames Allen: I am quito unable to ,tea.\. but that is not the point. Mr. Parr: It is very much to tho ■joint.

Sir James Allen said that the htmoiM'iable member had heard his growl ajid Rrumblo from tho disappointed men and jot from the 1398 men who hnd received these decorations. Did the honourablo Gentleman suggest for a moment that every recommendation from a captain or a major, or a colonel had to ho acSented by the general in command? Mr. Parr: What ahout a brigadier!' Sir .Tames Allen did not reply, but went bn to explain that all recommendations from officers went to the general, who Jvould examine the evidence before decid--snff whom he should recommend for lionmi,rs. He referred in nassinsr to Caplain Coates's decoration. ■ Ne-v Zealnml had s'cceived 1398 decorations, and tho Commonwealth of Australia hnd received D7Wi. Honourable members could make the comparison for themselves and indue for themselves whether we had i.ad our share. The decorations srained in \ew Zealand were 1.7 per cent., whereas for (Australia the rato is 1.2 per cent.

Mr. Irfe: tip to what date is lhat for Australia ?

Sir .Tames Allen:- Apnro.ximatcly the £amo dale as for New Zealand. Mr. Parr: Then tho 'jfficial return is Iwrong? Pir .Tame.i Allen: The honourablo genimma" Ga -' rs " 10 "fw'al return is wrong. Uliat is tho only way ho can get nit rf liis difficulty. Mr. Pan-: No, T .say vour velum is Tvrong. The official figures con'ra<licf £011. About "Unpopularity." Sir James Allen: Tho honourable member says that Geu.jal Godloy is unpopular with his men. 1 havo heard before of great commanders being mpopular with their men. Napoleon, I believe, was not very popular with his men. but no one'would s*y that lie was not a great soldier. Ho went on to say tliat all tho ovidence was that General Gcdley was a thorough soldier, a good tactician, a capable orgiv.iiser, and care-

fill for the welfare of his men. Tho New Zealand Division under lis command was second to none in tho fighting lino. Itr. Parr: Thanks to liussell. Sir James Allen: Tho honourable gentleman says "Thanks to liussell." ill". Parr: And tho material. Sir James Allen.: I know it is owing to tho material, but you can' not work good material into figliting shapo without a good commander and a good staff. General Godley may bo unpopular—T don't know—but unpopularity is not always a sign that a man is not a good oommander. The Few of the Many? "Tho honourable gentleman went on to say that General llodley had his eyes specially upon tlioso who expected favours at his hands. Upon what basis does hd make that charge? He ought to substantiate it or withdraw it, because it is a very serious chargo to make. Ho said that General Godley possesses neither tho regard nor tho respect of the men. How does ha know? Ho has spoken to a few men and heard them grumble. Perhaps they were disappointed. AVhat does ho know about 'the main body of the men? There aro many thousands of them. Jlr. Parr: Eleven thousand men aro back here, and not one of them speaks well of him. Sir James Allen: The honourable gentleman has not heard all tho eleven thousand. He has only heard a few. The honourable gentleman says there is irreconcilable hostility or bitter disliko on the part of all ranks towards General Godley. Sir, I have not heard of it. These charges made at a time like this ought to bo substantiated or withdrawn. Tho honourable member had mado a complaint that New Zealanders were not getting opportunities for learning staff work. In actual fact there were two New Zealanders on the Army Corps Staff, five on tho Divisional Stalf, twelve on Brigade Staffs, and six on miscellaneous Stall work; a total of twenty-five. Then tliero wore 'tlirco commanding; officers, jivo technicallv employed on special duty, 11 regimen tally employed, and nine on the New Zealand roll for return. Also there had been New Zealand officers transferred to tho British Army for Staff work and there were Now Zealand officers doing Staff work for the Commonwealth loires. He would remind the honourable gentleman. however, that Staff work required a great deal of training, which could not be obtained by regimental work. Mr. Parr: How many New Zealanders are thero on General Godley s Staff? Sir James Allen said that General Godley had a right to choose t.ie best men available for his Staff work and he would bo very much at fault if lie. favoured New Zealand officers. Mv. Parr: No on© has accused linn ot Sir .Tames Allen said that staff vxrk might ho a matter of life and death for tho force, and General Godley bad won the highest praise. The honourable member denied that General Godley was a good soldier. On what authority did ho denv it? Did he consult General Birdwood or General Haig at tho front. The Charge of Cowardice.

Tho Minister quoted an extract from a letter from General Birdwood <u-n?mg tho assertion that General Godley ww a coward, that ho stuck to his dug-out, never visited his trenches, and mer went to tho danger zone. Mr. Parr: That chargo was never made James Allen: I mention it because it was made generally. Mr. Reed: It was never made generally. Sir James Allen: "Oh, yes. It was made several times. He then read, the e:; tract in which General Birdwood wrote that he had had on several occasions to General Godley against unduly cxposing himself to danger. . Mr. Young: Does he expose his r.eu unnecessarily? . Sir James Allen: ?>o. Ho then Tead tho otlier extracts which expressed the approval of General Birdwood ot General Godley's work as a commander and administrator. Who, he asked, was right General Birdwood ot the member for Eden? , , t,, I Mr. Parr: Tho member for Eden. Sir James Allen: I would take General Birdwood's opinion first. Mr. Hindmarsh: You never talco a common 6oldier ; s opinion, do Sir James Allen: Oh, yes. I tako a common soldier's opinion sometimes. Iho honourable gentleman made this remark: that officers at Gallipoli, if they were allowed to speak, would havo something to eav on this. That is a suggestion not wortliv of tho honourable gentleman. Mr. Parr: It it quite true. Sir James Allen: Did tho officers tell him this in confidence? If so, iho honourable gentleman has betrayed his confidence. If ho did not betray confidence, ho still ought not to havo made this kind of suggestion, which is cruel, is wicked, and unworthy of a member of Parliament. . All lion, member: That is not a lair 1 1??. 'speaker: I think the honourable gentleman should not mako that last statement. . . . Sir James Allen: Well, sir, I will withdraw "unworthy of a member of Parliament." ••• , . _ .... Mr. Parr: I know what I said is true. Sir James Allen referred last of all to General Godley's alleged lack of human qualities, saying that ho did not believe ho deserved any such reproach. Possibly, ho said, ho had incurred it because ho was a disciplinarian, but disciplino was essential in a i6rce if it was : to light well

Colonel Rhodes in Defencc. Tito Hon. If. H. Rhodes said lie intended to say something in Teply to Mr. Parr's criticism of General Godley. In regard to Mr. Parr's suggestion that certain matfers might have to be inquired into I>y the Government, Mr. Rhodes said tho member for Eden should come out into tho open and Bay exactly what it was that should he inquired into. Vaerno charges of this Kind wero to ho ucprecat'ed. Ho (Mr. Rhodes) had been with General Godley in the trcnchcs day by day. lis.acted liko any other General. Ho was just as solicitous for tho safety and comfort of his men as any other General. Ho was not more were in his discipline than other Generals. General Godloy feared nothing for himself. Ho was beyond question a bravo man. At times he made his staff anxious for his safety. Mr. Rhodes said ho was in a position to bear witness to General Godley*s unconcern for liia own safety. Ho was twico shelled out of his headquarters at Gallipoli, and on ono ocrasion liis own mossrooTi) wns blown up. Ho stood as muoh risk as any man. Tho-o who said General Godley was not a good soldier should ask his staff offirers. They considered him a good soldier.