THAGEDY OF KITCHENER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18322, 12 August 1921, Page 5

THAGEDY OF KITCHENER

GREAT MAN’S INFLUENCE WANES. A POIGNANT PICTURE. LORD ESHER’S BOOK. Piew Awocittion —3y Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, August 11. (Received August 11 at 8.50 p.m.) Lord Esher’s hook, “The Tragedy of Lord Kitchener,’’ was published to-day. The author writes ; “The title was not evoked by the nature of Lord Kitchener’s death, but is intended to emphasise the tragic spectacle of a great man called to a great task with a full consciousness that the powers which had served him steadfastly in the past had deserted him. When Lord Kitchener assumed control he \yas no longer the Kitchener of Soudan or South Africa, but only he was aware of that fact. Lord Kitchener found that the War Office all except one were aged, tired men who trembled before him and his reputation. Ho was denied help and guidance, and in this novel situation he lost his self-confidence. His vision was clear, but he was unable to communicate it to others. Therefore, he was powerless before the Cabinet in which he had no confidence. * Accustomed all his life to independent action. Lord Kitchener was at a disadvantage in collective action, and for this reason his colleagues did not accord him their confidence. His steps faltered and influence waned, so that at the most vital moments he was hurried into an action of which he did not approve. He wanted a grand campaign in the Near East, and his failure to gain this resulted in delay and misunderstanding.” There is a poignant picture of Lord Kitchener on May 14, 1915, to his demand for more shells. Lord Kitchener wrote : “I am deadly sick of this system of intrigue, and if I get an excuse I will get out of it all.” In this way was a repercussion of the events which Lord French already described especially Colonel Eepington’s notorious telegram to The Times. Lord Esher continues : “Lord Kitch’ener eat alone in mufti in his Soudan chair with a quiet, gentle look like a wounded animal. The shell controversy illuminates the man’s strength, weakness, and self-abnegation, but displays him as unreccptive of new ideas, disinclined to adopt new methods which he did not originate, and slow to take advantage of the experience of lesser men. Lord Kitchener’s mediocre reasoning and stolid approach to obvious conclusions irritated his colleagues, and destroyed the admiration and affection, and almost the respect, they once felt for him. Lord Kitchener's inability to convince them of his sincerity was mortifying. The contrast between the place he knew he occupied in public esteem and what he knew was the inner mind of his earnest colleagues, whom he vainly tried to influence and guide, composed the tragedy.”—A. and N.Z. Cable.