LORD YPRES’ BOOK

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 198, 23 July 1931, Page 5

LORD YPRES’ BOOK

SIR J. FORTESQUE’S ATTACK. “DOWNRIGHT FALSEHOODS.” I have read. I think, most of. the books written by English military men from the sixteenth century to 1913, including many by officers with a grievance, and by ill-conditioned grumbling privates. But never have I encountered such a lamentable work as Lord French’s “1914.” The most charitable view is that it is the work of a monomaniac. Such is the verdict of Sir John Fortescue, the famous military historian, in a sensational article which he contributes to the June number of Blackwood’s Magazine dealing with “Horace Smitli-Dorrien” and Lord French’s methods of command in the early days of the war. During the battle of Mons, Sir John writes, French (afterwards Lord Ypres) was strangely inert: Though aware at 5 p.m. of the imminent danger that threatened him, lie remained for long passive. . . _ The commander-in-chief simply abdicated his functions and told the two corps commanders (Haig and SmithDorrien) to settle the details between themselves. He should have issued written orders to his subordinates. He did not do so; but himself retired first “to St. Quentin, 26 miles to the south.” where he con'd not be found, and then to Noyon. From thence, at 8.15 p.m. (of August 26) the French liaison officer reported to General Lanrezac, “'Battle lost by British Army, which seems to have lost all cohesion,” a message very significant of the atmosphere at (British) General Headquarters. SMITH-DORRIE^. The battle was that of Le Cateau, and it was not lost. Smitli-Dorrien made his report to the effect that he had broken off bis action and secured his retreat; but lie was openly rebuked for taking too cheerful a view. Sir John Fortescue tells the public that when Lord French published his book “1914”: — . . I remember rushing eagerly to it in the confident hope that it would clear up divers obscurities. After a very short perusal I fell back aghast, saying: “The man must be mad.” Its chief object seems to have been a malignant attack upon Smith-Dor-rien, but the malignity (I am sorry to use strong words about a dead man who had done good service as a soldier before 1914), though conspicuous enough, was outdone by its clumsiness and stupidity. He made the wildest statements, which could be refuted by a glance at official documents; he uttered downright falsehoods, which could have been proved to be such by living witnesses ; and he was so eager in defamation that not unfrequently he contradicted himself. Smitli-Dorrien suffered in silence because he was “a good soldier and a great gentleman”; and yet, in Sir John Fortescue's opinion, in the critical hours of 1914 “lie had proved himself infinitely better qualified for tire post than Sir John French.”