THE GREAT WAR

Evening Star, Issue 18138, 30 November 1922, Page 6

THE GREAT WAR

BOOK ABOUT EARL HAIG. HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL. SOME SWEEPING DECLARATIONS. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, November 29. (P>eceived November 30, at 9.35 a.m.) Two volumes entitled ‘Sir Douglas Haig,’ by Mr G. A. B. Dewar and Lieu-tenant-colonel John H, Boraston, have been given wide attention by the London Press. Lieutenant-colonel Repington, in the ‘Daily Telegraph,’ points out frankly the controversial character of tho woriy He says that Mr Dewar lays Bib out him a whip composed of barbed wire and scorpions, and ho dock not let anyone off, least of all Mr Lloyd George. Colonel Repington summarises many questions dealing with the political errors of war-time statesmen which the public should expect Mr Lloydi George to ajmwor on tho first possible occasion. 'thus, why the War Cabinet early in 1917 accepted General Nivello’s crack-brained plan of campaign and subordinated Sir Douglas Haig to General Nivelle. Is it a fact that the French prediction of the German attack in March, 1918, was wrong as to place, date, and time? On the other hand, was British Headquarters correct? Did the War Cabinet send Sir Douglas Haig _a warning and discouraging telegram in August, 1918, after ho (and not Marshal Foch) had planned tho final offensive in which tho Australasian troops figured in the Somme area, and which Marshal Von Ludendorff admitted was Geimatry’s clay of doom ? Were Sir Douglas Haigo reference to a shortage of men deleted from the despatches, even after the war, in order to shield tho War Cabinet from criticism?

Colonel Repington likewise controverts Colonel Boraskm’s vigorous attacks on tho French command, because the French “ at no time were able to make good the full ■responsibility which they assumed during tho Gorman offensive of March, 1918.” Mr Sidebotham, in the* Daily Chronicle,* says that Mr Dewar points out that tho actual plans of the final victories of tho war wore not Marshal Foch’s, but were of British origin. After tho victory on August 6 Marshal Foch wanted Sir Douglas Haig to attack Roye. but tho latter insisted on attacking further north, and tho 'brilliant British victory at Bapaumo followed. There wore other instances in which tho British were right and tho French wrong. It is useful, says 'Mr Sidebotham, to have soma corrective of tho disparagement of the British Army, of which many French writers are guilty ; hut it is not right to correct it by running down tho'work of the French. Mr Sidebotham also justifies tho War Cabinet's telegram to Sir Douglas Haig declaring that the victories ‘between, August and November were almost as costly as the defeats between March and June, 1918.—A. and N.Z. Cable. (Mr G. A. B. Dewar is editor of tho ‘Nineteenth Century.’ He made many visits to the western front in 1916 and 1917, and was a guest of tho French army »i,t Verdun in 1917. Lieutenant-colonel ißoraston served in tho war from 1914 to 1919, and was mentioned in despatches four times. He was private secretary to the Commandor-in-Ghief in France in 1919.]