The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1918. GENERAL GOUGH

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9965, 8 May 1918, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1918. GENERAL GOUGH

The Lord Mayor of Belfast has taken an early opportunity of putting forward a plea in defence of General Gough, . who commanded the Fifty Army, on which the main weight of the German offensive fell on the unforgettable twenty-first of March. The plea is, as the summary of the Belfast Lord Mayor’s remarks shows, an epitome of General Gough’s case. It is that the Fifth Army, which he commanded, was not defeated, in the ordinary sense of the term; that it was overwhelmed by greatly superior force; that, nevertheless, its tenacity under the leadership of its general delayed the enemy’s progress, gaining at tremendous cost time for the bringing up of reserves, and thereby saving the British Empire and France. ■ Between the lines of this view runs the claim that the battle should be credited to the commander of the Fifth as a victory which.,saved the Empire, not as a'"defeat' which brought the Empire and the Allied cause within close distance of disaster.

- Though we have discussed this operation freely in its prima facie aspect, we recognise that it is only fair to give prominence to the defence against a very general presumption. No one ever doubted Sir Hugh Gough’s gallantry as, a soldier. His service in South Africa was of well-known good record, and when he made that record it was everywhere recognised that he was fulfilling expectations based on his family history. The name he bears was first made famous by General Lord Gough, who came into prominence as one of ‘'Wellington’s Colonels,” so highly eulogised in Napier’s “History of the Peninsular War,” and ended his military career as the conqueror of the Sikhs in the decisive battle of Gujerat, which closed the greatest struggle in which India had been engaged since Clive’s victory of Plassey. Two grandnephews of this distinguished officer fought in the Mutiny, and/rose to general's rank, being particularly distinguished under Lord Roberta. The present Sir Hugh (ho bears the name which the old Lord made famous) is a son of one of these generals, if we remember right, or, at all events, is closely related. After his African service he went to France at! the outset of the war in command of a cavalry brigade, obtained a cavalry division before the battle of the Marne, and, receiving rapid promotion, led one ot the large armies which opened the Somme campaign, obtaining, with General Eawlinson, whose army fought alongside of his, very high appreciation from his chief, Marshal Haig. Such a record and such forbears emphasise t,he right which the general has, in common with all men, of the “altoram partem audi.” The poet has truly said:

warrior tfamoused for fight. Alter a tnousand victories once foaled, * a r j m fhcihook <*f honour rased auite, "k^toilod^ 8 r wiutil J_ie TTie poetry here is splendidly aimed at tno prevention of injustice. It stronely supports the Belfast Lord Mayor’s plea, which is really a plea for the suspension of judgment until the knowledge of all the facts makes it prof nounceable. The general no longer commands, but waits for judgment, lli&ro can have been no inquiry, for there has been no announcement. It follows 'that thero cannot bav© been condemnation and removal from the service, as we hod reason to suppose there had been.

The plea of the Lord Mayor of Belfast—which comes from him because the general had written him a letter eulogising the behaviour in this battle of the Ulster division—appears to rest largely on the numbers 'engaged on either side. Fourteen divisions had to fight forty, and before three d'ays of the fight were done the forty had become fifty, the fourteen receiving no addition. Taking the divisions on both sides at 15,000, wo have 200,000 men receiving the shock of 600,000 on March 21st. The greater host was swelled on the 22nd and 23rd by 150,000 fresh men. The case is that the 200,000 ought to have been wiped out, but that, on the contrary, they held out, though forced to retreat through open country till help came in strength enough to stop the thrust of the great

1 enemy host. The plea was practically accepted before it was made, especially I “S' “ 6 northern Lord Mayor, for ari rest of judgment, but not for decision. liVlr Lloyd Gerge, who announced the j suspension of the general, has recently said that there was a mishap which all the soldiers he named recognised as such. The question is of the fixing of the apportionment of the blame for a considerable disaster., Prima facie | the general has to face the inquiry, as Ihe was in command. If ho is to blame at all, or partially, or entirely, the inquiry will determine. The Fifth Army f a s expected to hold. Was its failure to hold due to ignorance of the weight of the work allotted to it, or was it duo to faulty leadership ? Was the failure duo to absence of proper provision for immediate reinforcement, or reinforcement within a reasonable time? Was the length of enforced retreat due to the want of prepared positions to retreat upon? and if so who was rosponBiblo for that want, which is a stranger to the enemy’s service, as our troops have proved many times? Was the eventual success of the retreat due to the skilful dispositions of the commander, or simply to the unbreakable tenacity of the men? The only thing certain is that the unexpected happened, 3*‘mishap,” disastrous and dangerous. The man ostensibly responsible has to justify himself. Until ho docs so lie cannot command in the field, and until he fails no one can condemn him. But very strong condemnation somewhere is very necessary—that is the crux of tho situation.