THE WAR

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 4, 6 January 1916, Page 6

THE WAR

To-day's cablegrams contain further evidence of the struggle between Lord Kitchener and his critics. The shell question was one phase. Mr. Lloyd George's comment in the House of Commons on the tardiness of the expert discovery that high-explosive shell should be provided to the extent of at least 50 per cent., and the same Minister's, further remark that the importance of machine-guns—iong recognised by the Germans—was not accurately gauged till a layman (Mr. Asquith) visited the trenches, were expected to Jeac! to developments, but now seem to have been forgotten. Still, certain London journals affirm freely that Lord Kitchener is going to the Viceroyalty of India or to the Mediterranean command. If 60, the change would not necessarily be a subject for malicious inferences. Either post is one of immense responsibility, and a change, of this sort would be not inconsistent, with the reorganisation of the General Staff. It "> >n connection

with the General Staff that Lord Kitchener has met with most criticism. There whs a General Staff when the war broke out, but the Nation says it was "dissipated and destroyed" by Lord Kitchener, and that "from that moment the Government have relied on the single initiative of Lord Kitchener, neglecting to provide him with the means of informing himself as to the problems of the war, and the Cabinet with those authoritative and formal findings upon 'them which it is the business of a General Staff to supply " Colonel Rcpington has repeatedly complained of t>he over-riding of the General Staff'by Lord Kitchener To all of this Lord Kitchener's reply is a strong silence. But the reorganisation of the General Staff by Sir William Robertson is an indication that that institution is now to be an influential force. This may not bo contrary to Lord Kitchener's policy, but it is a- policy he did not follow before. Of course, he may have had a reason for not doing then what the Government sees fit to do now.

German chemists, it wa« lately cabled, are working on new diabolical gases. Another story says that on.the Kussian front the Germans used a brown gas, which was believed to be free of chlorine, but as 'the wind prevented it reaching the Russian lines, its composition and purpose are doubtful The opinion was hazarded that it might have been used merely to cover certain movements in the German lines, much as destroyers in a naval battle try to obscure the range between larger units, enabling the weaker side to escape punishment Gas has not yet accomplished enough 'to assure it a place in land warfare Some of the German prisoners captured by the French in the Champagne 'were asked what they thought of gas a3 an offensive or defensive weapon "Dreck" ' (filth) was their contemptuous reply. They said that the Germans relied, for attack, on bombs and grenades; for defence, on machine guns Speaking of the French advance in the Champagne, one prisoner said: "The French had 10 to 1 more men,, but they could not break through They merely captured our advanced positions Our machine guns hold the line " He was asked: "Then yon think your machine guns stopped the French in the Champagne?" "Yes/1 "Was there much hand-to-hand fighting?" "'No. We_ mowed down as many as we could until we had exhausted our munitions, but they kept coming, so we retired to our pits and the French passed over ns." "So, it, was not a bloody battle?" "No, not a brutal one The work .of the French was more like a Kriegsspiel (sham battle) where everything seemed carried out as pre-arranged. Nothing went wrong with the French attack in our sector That is the reason they carried our. first, position." The fact that the Germans of the first line retired to their pits on the exhaustion of their ammunition,- and allowed the French 'to pass over them, explains the. cabled statement that minor sieges were carried on in the conquered country long after the attackers had swept over the German first line.

The_ above gjves some idea of what an offensive on either side lias to face, and how difficult it is to break the first line, and how much more difficult to break .the second The September offensives (the British 'in Artois, the French ml the Champagne) were partial successes. General Joffre's order shows that he had hoped for greater results; at the same time, much was gained, and the enemy lost very heavily in the coun-ter-attacks. The British offensive at Loos, between La Bassee and Lens, began on 25th September and ended on Bth October with the final repulse of the German counter-attack, which cost the Germans 8000 to 9000' killed. Sir Douglas Haig, who has succeeded Sir John French, commanded the Ist and 4th Army Corps, which delivered the main attack. Sir John French's despatch does not mention the employment of reserves on the_ first day, 25th September, and this point has been a subject of criticism. It is considered by some critics that the arrival of reserves on 25th September would have assured a great victory At present, Neuve Chapelle and Loos must be considered only as step-ping-stones to a victory still to come. The present activity on all parts of the western front suggests that one side or the other (perhaps both) is carrying on offensive concentrations, and by general artillery fire is seeking to mask from the enemy the vital point of projected attack. Sir Douglas Haig reports • "Our fire prevented an enemy attack developing .north of Albert." In this contest of concentrations and rival concentrations and gunfire, the advantage is with superior munitions and numbers —with the side having the last reserves. The inferior side, to win, must do something big. The superior can afford to "nibble." (A later cablegram states that the casualties at Loos were 2378 officers and 57,288 men.)

If the allegations of the witnesses called by Germany in the Baralong case are substantially true, it amounts to the following A German submarine attacked a merchant ship, th,e Arabic (which is a crime under international law), and caused the death of 47 non-combatants (which is murder) whom it made no effort to rescue., Just afterwards a German submarine attacked another merchant ship, the Nicosian (again a crime under-international law), but did not happen to kill anybody It may have been the same submarine; at any rate,,the crew,of the Baralong (an armed vessel which came up under the disguise of United States colours) believed that the submarine that sank -the Arabic was now before them, continuing red-handed an illegal method of warfare which is more often attended by murder than not Having destroyed the submarine, tho avengers did not spare its crew That is to say, they were guilty of a reprisal. All reprisals that offend the moral sense are bad, but this reprisal has to be judged in 'the light of the tremendous provocation; not only of the general provocation supplied by the Belgian and similar outrages, but the special provocation supplied by a long series of sea-murders culminating in that of the Arabic. On the facts as now reported, we are not disposed to defend the action of the Baralong's crow. They would have better served humanity—and would very much better have served their nation—if they had not giver, way to their outraged feelings. It was not part of their duty to execute even mur.derers without trial. By dropping one spot on the nation's mantle, they have given a blood-stained enemy holdingground for an accusation. In principle, it is hard to see what defence we have. It seems that we can only defend ourselves by indicating an overwhelming difference in the degree to which Germans and Britons have deviated from the narrow path ; and this is the sort of defence Sir Edward Grey sets up. It is absurd to think that' Germans can excuse their own mass of crime by, accusing one badly-provoked ship's crew Americans will see this absurdity. That which is in Britain an individual case is in Germany (as the German army regu]ations_ prove) a part of the system.

Mr. Lloyd G«orge and the British Government have been in grips with some Clyde workmen and with a. Clyde newspaper This was represented as a conllicfc between Air Lloyd George and Labour, but Mr. Lloyd George declares that his opponent is only the Syndicalist section of Labour. Anyone who was in New Zealand'in 1912-13 will realise the significant distinction. It is not the first time that Labour's lau'fuLweapjjns have

been equipped with criminal cuttingedges by Syndicalist wreckers. Industrial mobilisation is as essential as military mobilisation, and Labour as a whole knows that. Mr Lloyd George sa.ys that the workers can, if they will, make sufficient munitions to end the war this year His defence of " restriction of the mobility of labour" apparently refers to the Munitions Act, under wliich certain workers cannot proceed to new employment without a discharge.