“1914.”

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18116, 5 June 1919, Page 5

“1914.”

MR ASQUITH IN DEFENCE. REPLY TO LORD FRENCH. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received June 4, 7.10 p.m.) * . LONDON, June 3. Mr Asquith, spooning at a complimentary iuuoneou, replied to st.ccements in AfOru i'rench’s uook % He complained tiiat Jjom Frenoii 'had been given access to omciai and conadentia! documents to bund up a case against men whose lips were closed, some by death aud otuers by omciai restraint, it was a flagrant breaon of the best traditions of tile public service. None knew better than Lord French that his charge against the Liberal Government of callousness in failing to supply sufficient guns and shells was witnout foundation. Documents which would be published shortly would prove that Lord French’s account of Lord Kitchener’s visit to Paris in September, 1914, was a travesty ou the real facts/' Mr Asquith stated that Lord French’s intended movements of the Army prior to Kitchener’s visit filled the Cabinet-with consternation,* ns ,they would have left France in the lurch 'at a moment of extreme need. The French Government shared this alarm. Between September, 1914 and 1915, the forces in the field were increased four-fold, and munitions nine-teen-fold. Manufacturers, promised a much larger output of munitions than they actually supplied, Air Asquith concluded by reading a private letter, written by Lord French in May, 1915, stating: “In the whole history of war no Commnndor-in-Chief has been helped in his difficult task bv the head of t’he Government as I linvo been supported and strengthened by your unfailing sympathy and encouragement.” *\ -

He flatly denied Lord French’s assertion that he advocated high explosives instead of shrapnel before the war. Mr Asquith quoted a document showing that Headquarters asked the Government in November. 1914, to reduce tho percentage of high - explosives from 50 to 25 ner cent. Air Aennfth quoted Lord Kitchener’s letter' written on the eve of the famous Newcastle, speech in which he said Tvord French had told him that with the rvresent sunplv of ammunition he would have ns much as the troops would ho a hie to use for the next attack. Air Asquith accepted full responsibility for Lord French’® recall, which had uo more to do with shells than the eclipse of tho moon.

. A COASTAL ATTACK PROJECT. FURTHER STATEMENTS BY LORD FRENCH. (Received June 4, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, Aiay 23. Lord French in a further article in the “Daily Telegraph ” states: —“In September I formed the opinion that it was extremely desirable to push coastwise and northward and drive tlie Germans from the sea. Air Churchill enthusiastically supported the project and promised absolutely devastating naval support.” Lord French anticipated that Marshal Joffre and the French Government would oppose the plan. Air Churchill on December 8 wrote stating that Lord Kitchener fully agreed with the plan, promising _ to ©end the Twenty-seventh Division. Cabinet next- day strongly urged the plan upon the French Government, which referred the question to Marshal Joffre. He rejected it, as he had another elsewhere, “which,” says Lord French, “proved a very feeble substitute-” Air Churchill 'continued to press the matter, urging Lord. French again to put the Admiralty’s-views before Alarshal Joffre, Lord Kitchener in a memorandum of January 9. 1915, showed that the War Council nad abandoned the coastwise advance on the grounds it would be too costlv and. would extend the line too far. Heavy reinforcements could not he furnished without disorganising general arrangements and a sufficient ®nnply of ammunition was not available to ensure carrying tho project through to a conclusion. though every effort was being made in all parts of the world in order to obtain an unlimited supply. • The War Cbuncil also anticipated a strong German attack in the near future which could better he. resisted in existing prepared positions. Lord French disagrees with these objections, seriatim, and mentions that lame trainloads of ammunition traversed France a few months h'ter, hound for the Dardanelles. He considers these reasons for rejecting the plan for the coastal attack illogical. Probably the true explanation was to be found in the War Ouncil’s memorandum of January 9 in which the view was expressed that the operations on the West Front would probably develop into a stalemate and that it would he necessary fo find, another theatre of war where decisive results would, be obtainable. Lord French’s opinion was invited on the matter and ho replied discussing .nil ■possible . theatres, including Gallipoli, He said the attack on Turkey would he devoid of decisive result. Tlie. onlv decisive' theatre was Germany itself. Lord French added: “Tt is quite feasible to break tlie German line with a sufficiency of gum a fid sbiVli explosive shells. In nnv case it will be iresnfe to withdraw troops from the Western .Front which is vital and where alone decisive results are obtainable-’’ .Oonoral Joffre expressed a- final opinion on May 19. 1915. that it was necessary to he prepared for a Gorman offensive in the near future; The front must he made ft.bsolutelv secure aud the Allies must he readv to assume the offensive. Rere’-ves were absolutely necessary and all rerendnrv operations, including tho Flanders const "ttnek mu-sf rnV© wav thereto. Lord Freneh concludes hv nt o ring that ho a 1 wavs rli®agreed with thc®e views npd remains convinced his ulap should Lave been accepted and tried whereas those no+nnllv employed .onlv respited in feeble unsuccessful nflnm-efa to h-• a®k the Gnrmnn line end in .absolute failure at the Dardanelles. QUESTIONS FOR LORD FRENCH. (Received June 4, 10.50 p.m.) LONDON, Aiay 23. The “ Westminster Gazette” recalls Lord French’s eulogy of Lord Kitchener in the House of Lords on June 20, 1916,. when he said, “ A efc peraecu tion has again lifted its ugly head.” The “ Gazette” asks whether Lord French did not intend to retire on his base aud leave the French Army in the lurch; whether the French Government did not protest earnestly, whereupon Cabinet deputed Lord Kitchener to pcrsonnlly convey to Lord .French their decision that he should not retiro as proposed. NEWSPAPER OPINION. LONDON, June 2. Apart from the anti-Kitchener Nortlicliffe Press, tho newspapers generally consider that All* Asquith has dissipated Lord French’s accusations. They especially draw attention to Lord r renen s eulogy of Mr Asquith three days after the Liberal Government’s fall, whereas Lord French now states that he engineered the fall in order to save the country from ruin. ,