The Star. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903. ANCIENT BLUNDERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7637, 21 February 1903, Page 4

The Star. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903. ANCIENT BLUNDERS.

If tho cabled report of the evidence given before tha South Afrio&n War CommiSfcioft " . is correct, General Buller may truly b& eaid to have " out«Bullef ed Buller." It is the opinion of all experts tha* the guns which he lost at Colenso might have besn saved on the night following the battle, if Sir Redvers had taken the trouble to send a, party to recover them; yet, he now tries to «how that their rescue could only have been effected during the day. Again, with reference to the unhappy Spionkop affair, he attempts to exculpate himself, only to fAll deeper into the mire in) which he has been floundering ever since the public began to understand the magnitude of the blunders which he committed. He has tried almost every excuse to extricate himself, without sucoets. Now he comes forward with & fresh one. The action, we ate told, enabled the men to gain a. knowledge of war and confidence in themselves and their offloers, besides inflicting on. the enemy great loss in men and morale. Indeed! After two years ifcarchlng, is this the matured opinion of ihd commander who was responsible for Spionkop? If it were founded on fact, it would be bad enough, but it has nob even that merit. Instead of inspiring confidence In the troops, it is Wll known that ♦he battle shook their serves so badly th«t they had to be withdrawn during the following night, and we have Bullet's own statement, as evidence, that they were unfit for active operations for some days afterwards. True, the battle may have taught them confidence in their officers, but as most of the latter were either killed or wounded, the advantage of this form of education was, to say the least of it, problematical. As to the damage inflicted on> thfe enemy, the Boer historian! declare that it was small $ and although they are not always to -be trusted, their statements with reference to their losses at Spionkop have never been disputed by British writers. General Buller's latest utterances are in keeping with his attitude right through the long controversy which arose out of the batflc. They leave the impression thai besides being weak and* vacillating in. no common degree as a general, he is a poor diplomat. fie blundered 1 on the battlefield 1 , and blundered in his initial explanation of his mistake*. But his Worst blunder of all have been.' reserved until the pr«senb tune, when, instead of either observing a discreet silence or adhering to his previous ctatementa) ha produces a aeries of fresh Mouses, which often conflict with his . original assertions, and are never convincing. In contrast to General Buller'j* ineptitude, Sir George White's testimony before ! the Oommieirion is refreshingly pointed! j White^'may not hare been a clever general, but he possesses qualities which will for ever command) the refipeot of hia critics. Had he boeft obliged to abandon Ladysmith, he intended 1 to out his way out, not to follow his superior's outrageous counsel, 4nd tamely surrender. Moreover, he thought he could get out, although Ma 6000 troops were emaciated with hunger and racked with disease.- Buller, on the other hand, despaired' of getting in, in fiplte of the fact that he had more than 20,000 Mien, well fed, in good health, and Otherwise in fighting trim. With feuch examples of their Spirit before us t further comparison of the two generals is superfluous.