STUDY OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 89, 9 January 1926, Page 20

STUDY OF WAR

LECTURE BY SIR G. ASTON

Lord Grey of Fallodon presided at the first of a course of public lectures on military studies at the University College, London. The lecturer was Major-General Sir George Aston, whose subject was “The Study of War.” In introducing the lecturer. Lord Grey said Major-General Sir George Aston would speak with at least three qualifications. He did not say that there were not more than three, but three occurred to him at the moment. First of all, Sir George Aston liad professional knowledge and training with regard to certain branches of war. In the next place, he had been—what did not always go with professional knowledge and training—a student of the history of war; and, thirdly, he had brought to the study of war a broad human sympathy and a wide outlook on human welfare which enabled him to give a point of view not separate -from considerations of what was really for the welfare of mankind. There were three aspects, too, from which the study of war might be considered. There was, first of all, the study of war as a part, a very considerable part, unfortunately, of human history; and, therefore, of course, all professional soldiers and sailors ought to study that in order that, if they were called upon to command armies and navies in war, they might avoid the mistakes which had been made by their predecessors. Another point of view from which war should be studied, not merely by professional soldiers or sailors, but by civilians, was that it was exceedingly necessary—and nothing exemplified it more than the last war—that as we were governed not by soldiers _ and sailors, but by civilians, civilians likely to take part in government in time .of war should study sufficiently the principles of war and particularly the great mistakes which civilian Governments .had made in matters of military and naval strategy in past history. They would find, unfortunately, many of them in the last war, because he was sorry to say that he himself was partly responsible for some cf them. The third point of view, verv important for all educational institutions, was that each generation should be brought up to realise what modern war meant. It was by bringing home to each succeeding generation what the realities of modern war were, how vastly more catastrophic aqd disastrous war now was to the whole population than ever before, that thev would form a public opinion not only in this country but also in other countries which would diclp to secure peace. The study of war would show that if we had a future war it must be even more disastrous and destructive to human life and to property than the great experience we had been through. (Cheers.) Major-General Sir George Aston said their object was to discuss the need for the study of war by those who did not belong to the fighting forces. He quoted from an article by the late Colonel Henderson in the supplement to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” published 23 years ago, in which the following plea for such study appeared:—“There is no standard work on war in the English language, no volume of permanent value which deals with the organisation, maintenance, and employment of armies from the point of view of the statesman and the citizen. History, as taught in the present day, includes an ■immense variety of subjects, but there is one subject which it has sedulously shunned, and that subject is the defence of empires. Hardly any well-known political writer, except Spenser Wilkinson, appears to have the least inkling, that such knowledge should be part of the intellectual equipment of every educated man, and no great teaching body .has yet endeavoured to supply the deficiency. So, in both Great Britain and the United States, organisation has been ■neglected, efficiency has been taken for granted, and . the national resources have been cither wasted or misused. Costly, ill-planned, and ill-con-ducted enterprises have been the inevitable result.” Those words were written during the South African War. Had "the author lived through the years of the Great War and its aftermath, lie would have written differently.. He 'would have advocated research m the origin, nature, and causes of war, with

f a view to supporting ail movements which tended to its avoidance. Tie | would have pleaded for a standard work, written from the point of view of tlic statesman and citizen, on the organisation, maintenance, and employment not only of armies, but of the three fighting forces, placing each in its true perspective It would be a fatal mistake for a British student to confine his studies to the continental view of warfare, as simply a question of conflicts between armies. Aiid finally, Colonel Henderson would have accentuated the point that modern war 110 longer resembled a gladiatorial combat witnessed by crowds seated in safety around a blood-stained arena The march of science had brought the whole human race into closer relationship so that the life of every man, woman, and child was intimately, affected by the conflict. During the current University year a course of public lectures would be delivered by leading authorities upon different aspects of war, and it was hoped thereby to develop a comprehensive view of the nature of warfare on the different elements. Ihe underlying idea was that they might be of service to what Colouel Henderson called “statesmen and citizens,” among the latter being included specially those with influence over public opinion, either by their position in the academic world, or in politics, or as members of that great force in modern life wlnc.i has been called the Fourth EstateTaking one or two examples from recent experience of the advantage of studying past operations of war, and tne functions of sea and land forces in that connection, Sir George Aston said he did not think any example was to be found in history of a fleet, without the aid ot land forces, capturing a large area of Continental territory containing a. strong hostile army. Bearing that in mind, and the terrible losses which occurred in 191 a, without in any way contributing to the success of the Allied cause, few, of those present would wish to bear the responsibility which rested upon the authority, whoever he might have been, who ordered the Admiralty in January of that year to prepare to take the Gallipoli Peninsula without ‘he aid of troops. The evidence of that written order, which was published by the Daradanellcs Commissioners, sufficed to prove the need for some knowledge of war in those responsible for the general conduct of operations. Another example was the opinion. widely held, that we could have defeated the armies of the Central Powers more quickly by sending the bulk of our Army to Salonika than by sending it to France, Pointing out the tremendous transport difficulties ano the likelihood of enemy troops being sent to parry the blow, he said it was not easy to discover the benefit, cither military or political, which would have accrued to us if we had sent the bulk of our Army t<- Salonika.

The pages of the history of. many nations, he added, were stained with the names of those who had sacrificed the lives of members of the fighting forces, no' with the single purpose of advancing a cause by defeating an enemy, but for the lesser object of keeping some dynasty, gv/ernment, or individ al in power by pandering to the well-known public demand for successful combats, regardless of their ultimate influence upon the issue of a war. A more widespread knowledge of the realities of war would reduce the popularity of such, operations and place them and their origination 111 a truer perspective. It was not necessary to emphasise the point that the stuoy of peace-making and of treaty-making it the past would, be a useful equipment for those charged w this tremendous m the future. With regard to patriotism as a war influence, Sir G. Aston pointed out t».at this great moral force could be used either for the advancement or for the destruction of mankind. Patriotism, or love of counrty, was built upon the sentiment *of individual families, towns counties, or class loyalties. It would seem, then, to be disastrous to destroy patriotism, leaving no foundation upon which to build a wider outlook-. rhe conclusion to which war study must inevitably lead would be the same as .hat arrived at by the great Englishwoman whose death we have recently commemorated, that “Patriotism is not enough, and in the words of their diairman, that wc must “learn or perish.”