WAR MEMOIRS

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 154, 17 March 1923, Page 5

WAR MEMOIRS

DISCLOSURES OF PUBLIC MEN USE OF CONFIDENTIAL AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS MR. LLOYD GEORGE’S ARTICLE

Mr. Lloyd George in his thirteenth article deals with the subject of war memoirs and the propriety of public men disclosing information which came into ' their possession in the course of their official careers.

TTho foliowine and all Lloyd George articles copyright by United Frees of America in all countries, copyright in Australasia by Australian Press, in Britain by "Dally Chronicle.” Beproduction in full or in part prohibited.!

BT TELMaiPH—PBKIB ASSOCIATION. -CoPYRIOHT.

(Reo. March 16, 5.5 London, March 14. Mr. Lloyd G-oorge writes: A storm is working up over the publication by public servants of information coming into their possession in tho course of their official careers. The immediate occasion is Mr. Churchill’s story of .the war. It is rather late in the day to make all this fuss about publication of war documents, for generals, admirals, and Ministers in all lands, including ours, have in the last three years inundated tho European and American public with a flood of reminiscences, explanations, and criticisms on attacks and defences in the conduct of operations either with the Great War or with the great peace. Warriors on land and sea have displayed unprecedented eagerness to inform the public of their share in the great victory and how much moro brilliant that share would have been but for to wrong-headedness or stupidity of some collaborator. Statesmen have been engaged in disclaiming responsibility for particular parts of the Versailles Treaty, and have striven hard to prove it attributable to pressure which they were unable to resist from other actors in the drama. In each highly confidential information .was disclosed and secret documents u&ed in Cabinet and Council proceedings were published without the slightest regard for precedent. PUBLIC MEN’S RIGHT TO CLEAR THEIR NAMES. ! A General. Admiral, or Minister criticises on the strength of the halfdisclosed minutes or documents of some other public functionary. What is the latter to do? His reputation is at stake. Is ho not to be allowed to correct a misquotation? Take the case of a Minister who played an important part in war or peace whose action is subjected to malignant and persistent misrepresentation. The Minister. knows a fuß and fair quotation would clear his good name; mere denial would nob carry weight. A full revelation would, settle the dispute. Publication cannot conceivably affect any public interest, and would supply no information which would servo an enemy of the country. He is defamed by men with access to secret information. Why should the country deny him the same privilege for his protection? There is such a thing as fair play, even when politicians are attacked. QUOTATION OF SECRET MEMORANDA.

So far as the British are concerned, the writing of books of this type was started, I think, by Lord French, in which he does not hesitate to quote textually secret memoranda. Lord Fisher in his book gives examples of his own intervention at War Council meetings. Sir William Robertson, for over two years confidential advisor to the Cabinet, in hie book, when it suits his argument, gives the public his account of what passed around the table. Of two authors who collaborated in wiiting, “Sir Douglas Haig’s Command/’ one was Lord Haig’s private seci etary. This book is even less reticent. The writers not only summarise some of the secret proceedings of the Supreme War Council and War Cabinet, but give extracts of their deci-

sions. Those are freely used as a basis of animadversion to the Council anol Cabinet of that day, and curiosity is aroused as to the source of the knowledge displayed. In addition, there are endless magazine and newspaper articles, most of them clearly supplied with secret information by men who acquired it in official capacity. PEACE CONFERENCE REVELATIONS. What happened in reference to the secret conclaves framing the peace treaty affords an illustration of the 4: ay these revelations occur. After tho signature of the treaty, Mr. Woodrow Wilson was strongly of opinion that the documents ought to be treated purely as private conversations. He objected to communication of accounts in the notes of these conversations, in which all had spoken their minds with great freedom, as an improper use might afterwards be made of these documents. M. Clemenceau did not think the documents could be regarded as private property. Baron Sonnino thought they should not lie considered as official l documents. I also felt bound to enter a caveat. If attacks were made on political heads I might lie forced to refer to the notes. M. .Clemenceau agreed that ib mighb be impos sible to refuse extracts from process verbeux to prove particular facts. 1 was the first to safeguard the interests of persons who I felt certain would be attacked for their share in the treaty. I am the last to take advantage of the proviso. What followed? Both M. CJemence.au and Mr. Wilson wero attacked by political opponents, and in seH-defence they authorised the pubhc.'<*on of the secret reports. M. G'ltjmencoau trusted his defence to M. Tardieu in the book “The Truth About the Treaty.” The who'e book is based on international proceedings of a. secret nature. M. Poincare, in maligning his rivals, has not refrained from making fu’l use of information gained as President of the Republic. According to Signor Nitti, M. Poincare makes gom—whaib similar disclosures in articles m the “Revue Deux Mondes.” MISLEADING PARTIAL' DISCLOSURES. All these disclosures were partially truncated, therefore a misleading impression was created, unfair to the other actors in the great drama. That is undoubtedly whaib compelled Mr. Wilson to hand his documents to Mr. Ray Baker, hence his book “Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement. * It is mostly based on the secret minutes of the Supreme War Council. Signor Nitti expressly states that he did not publish any document not intended for publication; nevertheless, he prints a memorandum written by myself for the conference in 1919, entitled “Some Considerations for the Conference Before it Finally Drafts the Terms.” I mention these matters, not by way of arraignment of various distinguished men for divulging secrets which they ought to have kept under lock and key, but in order to point out that the general rules under which confidential material can lie used are not applicable to the circumstances of'the Great War aißl the peace that ensued. Disclosures made for the criticism and aspersion of individuals have given the assailed parties a special position which in justice cannot be overlooked.