The Otago Witness. (WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1918.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3332, 23 January 1918, Page 39

The Otago Witness.

(WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1918.) THE WEEK.

WITH WHICH IS INGOBPOBATBD HI bouthubn lcaaouai.

"Nunquem allud natura, allud caplentla dixit.** -JUTIJfiL. J "Oood nature and good tense mast «rw Join."-" tor*.

Man-power is the central problem of the war at. the present time;

The Man-power Problem.

it is the most urgent need of the British armies at the

front. The enemy is staking everything upon Great Britain'** failure to solve this paramount problem. Such were some of the emphatio statements made by Sir Auckland Geddee when, in his official capacity as Minister of National Service, he, in the course of a 90 minutes' -speech, introduced" the Government's Man-power Bill to tha House of Commons. The essential figures in the situation are both significant and imposing. Already the British Empire haa raised the .- astounding total o? 7,500,000 troops, made up of the following denominations: —England has contributed 4.530,000, Scotland 620,000, Wales 230,000, Ireland 170,000, and the dominions and colonies 900,000. Even thismagnificent response to the call to ths colours was not sufficient; another 420,000 to 450,000 men are immediately required, with the prospect of still more in the near future. This immediate need arose from the fact that Russia's withdrawal from the war has' released 1,600,000 German and Austrian troops for the Western front; and consequently, until the weight of the American armies begins to tell, the British and French armies will be com-« pelled to resume the defensive. And to) render the defence secure the services ofi another half million or so of men axa urgently required upon the Western front. Not only is there imminent need for increasing the combatant army, but the army behind the army also requires to ba extensively added to. "Apart from tha army's needs," s#d Sir Eric Geddes, "the lahour-employing departments required a further 430,000 men and 119,000 women.:*' Although seriously discounted at the time of publication, it now becomes evident that the statements of Mr James W« Gerard are in no sense wide of the mark. In the" foreword to "My Four Years in Germany"—copies of which have at length reached' the Dominion—the late American Ambassador to the German Imperial Court writes: "I want to bring home tcj our people the gravity of the situation :l I want to tell them that the military and naval power of the German Empire ia unbroken; that of the 12 million men whom the Kaiser has called to the colours, but one million five hundred thousand have been killed, five hundred thousand permanently disabled, not mpre than five hundred thousand are prisoners, and about five hundred thousand constitute the number of wounded or those on the sick list of each day, leaving at all times about' nine million effectives under arms. I state these figures because Americans do not grasp either the magnitude or the importance of this war. Perhaps the stater meat that over five million prisoners of war are held in the varioue countries will bring home to Americans the enormous masses of men engaged. There have been no great losses in the German navy, and any losses of ships have been compensated for by the building of new. one. s , Tha nine million men and. more, for at least four hundred thousand come of militaryage in Germany every year, because of tfieir experience in two and a-half years of war, are better and more efficient soldiers than at the tlnla when they wera called to the colours. Their officers knoW| far more of the science of this wari ana the men themselves now have the skill

and bearing of veterans." In the face of such a statement as to the man-power of the enemy, Sir Auckland Geddes has confidence in the future. "Notwithstanding Russia's defection," he assured the House of Commons, "the resources which the Allies and America had actually mobilised or had in reserve in civil life were sufficient to assure victory. Only a psychological catastrophe such a 3 had befallen Russia could save the Central Powers. When'the full force of America came into play the endurance of the Allies would be justified by the superiority which was sure to herald a complete victory. Great Britain had four million men on the rolls to-day."

If the solution of the man-power problem bo the essential prelude to Great Britain's victory over Germany—and from the purely military point of view there seems no reason to doubt the statement,—then the success or failure of that solution depends almost entirely upon Mr Lloyd George's ability to win over the British democracy to his particular point of view. That point of view he has placed before the representatives of the Trades Unions affected by the Man-power Bill with all his oratorical gifts of powerful persuasion and vivid dramatisation. With a "brutal -frankness" fully equal to that of hie Paris speech, Mr Lloyd -George pictured the position as he sees it. "You might as well stop fighting," - he told the Trades Union representatives, "unless you are going to do it with all your might. It is real murder of ..the gallant fellows who have stood there for three years. There is no alternative. You have either got to put your whole strength into it, or just do what is done in the Russian army, and tell those brave fellows they can go home whenever they like. If there are men who say they will not go into the trenches, then the men in the trenches have a right to say, 'Neither will we remain here.' That would end the war; but what sort of an end would it be?" Following a flashlight picture of Russia in revolutionary chaos, at the mercy of the organised militarism of Germany, Mr Lloyd George focused the situation into one forceful phrase : "Unless we are prepared to stand up to,the whole might of the people now dominating Germany, you will find the democracy of Europe at the mercv of the cruellest military autocracy the world has even seen." If Mr Lloyd George succeeds in imposing his will, as represented in the Man-power Bill, upon the British people, it will constitute a signal feat of successful leadership. He is now treading a perilous path, and no orie, probably, recognises the extrmeme peril better than he. On every hand he is beset by foes; political foes who resent his close alliance with the more conservative sections in the Homeland; foes in the >press, who hate him with an intense hatred, because seeing in him a creation of Lord Northcliffe and the Northcliffe press; and now the seeds of suspicion are bearing fruit in the minds of the people B.t large. They still remember with gratitude the magnificent work done by Mr Lloyd George in the Munitions Department, in the hour of the Empire's extreme peril; and because of that signal service the people have given him a free hand. He occupies a unique position so far as- power is concerned; he virtually decides all military operations, " and no stint has been placed upon the spending of money to prosecute the war. And yet the people in England are beginning to ask: "Is he to-day the right man in the right place?" There ! have been rumours of serious disagreement between Mr Lloyd George and Sir Douglas Haig, and the political situation is far from promising. The question which now occupies men's minds is whether Mr Lloyd George will weather the storm, and the present manpower problem constitutes the supreme test of the Prime Minister's success or failure. He has stated his own conviction that the people of Great Britain must either continue the war or go nnder to the military might of Germany. It will now be for the people, fully cognisant of the gravity of the issues, to" decide.

Mr Lloyd George and British Democracy.

The most potent factor in the existing situation is the growing

The vvar weariness of Europe. War Weariness "The Russian soldiers of Europe, ceased fighting and fraternised," said Mr Lloyd Crflf'rgo; and if only this policy were adopted by all the nations the war would be at an end. But iust as Germany was the offender in precipitating this great war, so Germany still stands solidly in the way of peace. "Russian soldiers simply talked great ideals and principles 'to the German army. The Germane did not retreat, but took Riga and the islands." This is Mr Lloyd George's view of the matter; but, while it is the popular view, it by no means follows that it is the correct one. The heckling to which the Prime Minister was subjected by the Trade Union representatives showed that to some extent at least the Russian view j)f the situation appealed to British \»abour, and the same spirit is reflected n the meeting of the Woolwich workers and the action of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. It is not enough to lenouuee these bodies of men as traitors; there are reasons for their point of view which merit calm consideration. They question whether German Imperialism is the only obstacle to peace, and ask that no stone be left unturned—even to the .point of negotiation—to discover some \ither way than by continuing to send to \lie slaughter the best and the bravest tf the nations. The reflection of a similar i spirit is to be discerned in the strikes in Austria, said to be the outcome of peace propaganda; in the Caillaux scandal in France: and in the reported mutiny and disaffection in the German army. The entire discussion turns upon the important question whether or no it is possible to discriminate between the Imperial militarism of Germany and the German people as a whole; whether the virus

has so entered into the entire German system as to poison the body politic. Mr James W. Gerard declares most emphatically : " Nor should anyone believe that Germany will break under starvation, or make peace because of revolution. The German /nation is not one which makes revolutions. There will be scattered riots in Germany, but no simultaneous rising of the whole people. The officers of the army are all one class, and of a class devoted to the ideal":- of autocracy. A revolution of the army is impossible ; and at home there are only the boys and old men, easily kept in subjection by the police. There is l far greater danger of the starvation of our Allies than of the starvation of the Germans.

. . . Certainly the people suffer; but still more certainly this war will not be ended because of the starvation of Germany." If Mr Gerard's contentions are correct, the outlook is not a cheerful one. Failing the internal break-up of Germany, there is' the prospect of a long-drawn-out war, and after the war the exhausted Powers preparing themselves for a still sterner conflict in the future. The hope lies in German democracy rinding its voice, and by that voice speaking the doom of militarism. And it is the duty of every true patriot to help that" voice to make itself heard.