MR SPENCE'S NOTES.

Evening Star, Issue 15778, 15 April 1915, Page 2

MR SPENCE'S NOTES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—T wish to thank Mr Spence for his courtesy in referring me to General Focli’s ‘ Principcs do la Guerre.’ But so far as my memory serves me I have not this time asked for light or information. One does not need to consult that work in ord»r to see that Mr Spence’s discovery of “the new strategy” is a mare's nest! And T fear that the gallant general would bo likely to resent as an impertinence Mr Spence’s suggestion that it was he who fathered the discovery. I am described as a neophyte. A neophyte, presumably, when compared with so old and masterly a hand as Mr Spence. Well, 1 happen to remember a few of the more masterly of Mr Spence’s deductions. He- predicted with singular happiness the “great wheel to the left” which the Germans made after entering Belgium. But a child armed with a map might have prodieted with some confidence that they would not march into the sea. lie prediet, ed another wheel to the left Ijefora they reached Baris. True again! But it was in endeavoring to carry out Mr .Spence's conception of strategical fitness that the Germans fell upon disaster. He predicted that the Germans would “cut loose ” from Belgium as soon as possible. Alas! they are still there. Ho asserted that it would need a superiority of two nr three to one to shift them. Not at all. He predicted that Zeppelins would say the last word in aerial warfare. We hear little of them now. His only contribution to the problem of the submarine blockade has been the masterly question “ What can stop a submarine?’' Hb backed the German against the French field gun through lack of ability to analyse the evidence. He has admitted that he was wrong by declining to publish the facts. He has throughout illustrated with singular felicity that “ prediction, is the most gratuitous form of folly.” Is it when compared with this master-hand at strategical deduction that I am a neophyte? Would that he \vould reveal to mo the secret of his success! I confess to some admiration for Mr Spence's latest -remark on artillery. Your readers will remember that I have on two occasions asked Air Spence to have the courtesy to publish the essential and pertinent evidence which 1 do not possess, and thus decide the question. And I offered to candidly admit the fact, were my suggestions shown to be wrong. Air Spence, realising that he had been backing the wrong horse, refused the information. Now he asserts that it was I who “closed on that.” Considered as logic, this is unconvincing. Considered as a piece of bluff, it is sublime. He must have a wonderful degree of contempt for tho intelligence and memories of your readers. I must, warn Air Spence that I am likely to be “out” after him again if he continues these practices. So long as he plays the game ho may expect fair play fro'm me; bgt ho will not succeed in bouncing me either by ill manners or by references to text books. I have no quarrel with the cardinal doctrines contained in these works. It is when Air Spence adulterates the corn which he has borrowed from the text books with the weeds, of l}is own cultivation tfhat I have fault to find. But we shall probably hear as little about “ the new strategy” in the future as wa hear now about the superiority of the German gun.—l am, etc., Charles Edward Pell. April 14. [Air Spence answers :—lt is desirable to marshal the points that Air Pell has sought i to establish: (1) Artillery; (2) Strategy; (3; Want of courtesy in replying to him. On artillery he, was referred to Bethell. and on strategy to Foch. . AVhat more could be done by way of courtesy is hard to know, unless lie wishes a reproduction of Bethell and Foch in extenso, which is impossible. But Air Pell is not out for illumination; he is trailing his coat. There is no objection, so long as he manages to do what they call “ play the game.” But it is not doing so if discussions are opened, e.g., on whether General Foch might or might not resent anything which cither Air Pell or anyone else has said. It is certainly not playing the game to take my own repeated admissions about Belgium and to proclaim them as some- ■ thing resembling an original discovery. | Neither is it playing the game to make it appear that I backed the German artiliery against all developments which the Allies might improvise, and then to ascribe | that to luck of ability to analyse the evidence. Nor is it playing the game to assert that it will not require a two or three to one majority to move the Germans from Belgium. . Lastly, it is not playing the game to come out as an alleged illurninant on artillery and then to ask for the publication of data which the correspondent admits that he does not possess. ]