EXPERTS AND EXPERTS.

Southland Times, Issue 17656, 14 February 1916, Page 4

EXPERTS AND EXPERTS.

Nearly all who follow the war with close attention read regularly, the notes and comments of one or more of {he experts who write for British, newspapers and periodicals. The term “expert” is used loosely to cover the very large number of writers whose time since the outbreak of war has been taken up exclusively in describing and explaining military and naval operations. All of them are not experts, but many of them are highly qualified for their work, and their articles are valuable contributions to public instruction and enlightenment. At one time the writers who took the most optimistic view were probably the most popular, hut we fancy that the discerning public has got very' tired of the expert whose promises are never fulfilled, and the demand now is to be told cold facts without colour or gloss. The experts who have rigidly declined to see only one side of the picture arc coming into their own. They are winning the confidence of readers, whose hopes based upon the assurances of the optimists have been, repeatedly disappointed. The writer who deserves most to be trusted is he whose sole aim it is to explain the position as he secs it through trained eyes. The writer who is least trustworthy is ho who asks himself first of all what the public would like to hear about the Western Front, or the campaign in Mesopotamia or the defence ! of Albania, and then proceeds to serve j out “guff” without regard to facts that ought to be plain to him. A writer of this class is always impatient with any suggestion that the Allies arc not marching rapidly to victory or that the enemy is gaining ground, and he accuses any other writer less one-eyed than himself of looking only on the worst side of things. The writer who looks upon the best side of things only is equally at fault with the writer who looks only upon the worst side. There arc always two sides to lie looked at, and the trustworthy instructor is he who keeps both sides continually under calm and accurate observation. No greater mistake icould be made than to mislead th& public in regard to the progress of the war. Wo recollect reading some months ago the report of a speech made by Colonel Maude, an export who is, frequently quoted and whose military rank entitles him to respect. In September last the Allies were engaged in a. vigorous offensive in France, and Colonel Maude was lecturing in New Brighton. He was reported in the Standard to have said that "there was now every probability that the Allies would be able to drive the Germans steadily hack on the western front, and with reasonable luck they should have tbrnn against the Rhino within two months. The Allies had not attempted to do everything at one blow, they had consolidated every step won. and should he able to go on repeating the performance until the end came. The/ had evidently battened out the enemy, silenced his ~aus, and broken hjg

l>ower of resistance. The best information led to the belief that the Hermans could not parade under arms on anv one day more than 1 00.000 men, and it was now exceedingly probable that the end would come tvs a complete surprise." No doubt this made very excellent hearing to Colonel Claude’s audience at the time and popular reading with his wider audience in the press next day. but how does Colonel Maude’s prediction look to-day? He told us that the enemy .would be pressed back to the Rhine at the end of November. It is now the middle of February, aud so far from the having been driven back the enemy has been conducting an offensive of his own in France, and straightening and improving his line in the Hens district. The public will not be gulled indefinitely in these matters, and in view of the urgency of the call for men it is necessary that those who instruct us in regard to the war should abstain from drawing purely fanciful pictures, which are very pretty hut Wholly deceptive.