ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20292, 28 December 1927, Page 10

ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION.

LATE SIR HENRY WILSON. “ARCH ENEMY OF THE DARDANELLES” (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 16. Bitter allusions to the late Field-marshal Sir Henry Wilson, whom he designated aa the arch enemy” of the Dardanelles expedition, were made by Sir lan Hamilton in an address to the Royal Naval Division Officers’ Association. After recalling that in March, 1917, Sir Henry Wilson wrote of the importance of detaching the Turks, then the Bulgars, then the Austrians, Sir lan continued: "But. it was another story when we wera still in being. “ When you went first to try, at imminent danger to your lives, to help him and his commander-in-chief by your diversion at Antwerp he writes derisively: ‘There are Winston’s Marines, who have given us much amusement. There is that splendid Territorial Army of ours which Johnnie Hamilton and Haldane have for years said could put up a superb fight. Then why should Antwerp fall? ’ WHAT RUSSIA MIGHT HAVE BEEN. “On July 17, 1915, he goes to see Foch; he tells him the latest Dardanelles news, adding the terrible remark that ‘ a success would be a disaster.’ "In every way, constantly, he makes it his business to go round and try to ruin use—he, an officer holding a high appointment on the staff of a brother commander-in-chief.” Sir lan declared that if the E.N.D. had been able to push through the Black Sea to join the Russian armies of the south, Russia would have been secured to-day as a people friendly to England. “ Thera was no camaraderie; no shoulder to shoulder work between the British and Russian troops,” he said. “ Had there been, we should now, to-day, have been doing a gigantic trade with that country.” A PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Sir lan Hamilton writes a letter to The Times to correct any false impressions that might have Been produced by his speech. “ There is no ‘ attack, ’ ” he says. “ on the late Field-marshal Sir Henry Wilson involved in my having said of him that he was hostile to the Dardanelles idea He was just as much entitled to that opinion as any other statesman or soldier. Nor was there any attack on him in reminding my audience, by an extract from his diary, of the fact that he had no confidence at that time (1914-15) in troops like the Territorials, New Armies, or, Royal Naval Division. In pointing out, however, that he, as a staff officer to a brother com-mander-in-chief should not have worked independently against the Dardanelles enterprise with members of our own Government as well as with officers and members of the French Government, I did criticise tiis action, because I felt that someone at least should step out and say that in so acting ho was setting a bad example to young officers. "As to my personal feelings, although our former friendship seemed to be entirely broken by the stand I made for voluntary service as against national service, he wag of a generous kindly nature, and he never bore malice. The day after the tragedy in Belgrave Place I spoke _of him on a public occasion in terms which caused me to be threatened with a like death myself if I did not ‘ stand off the grass.’ ”