EDUCATION AND THE ARMY

By LORD GORELL

[Lord Gorell was in charge of the Army Educational Corps in the Great War] N his speech on January 16th to the House of Commons I the retiring Secretary of State for War spoke of the Army as " part of the nation " ; the nation is (happily) a democracy, and it is impossible to think of a democracy without education as its basis. Mr. Hore-Belisha did not tell the House that the education of the Army is now largely at a standstill. On the outbreak of war in September last the Army Educational Corps was broken up and most of its per- sonnel transferred to other duties, such as cypher work, which was foreign to their engagement and for which they had no special training. But some will perhaps say, naturally enough: " an army exists solely for the purpose of fight- ing and overcoming the enemy and cannot, in time of war, afford to have any of its energies diverted to education." The answer to that simple saying is this : it was said and acted upon in 1914, it was regretted in 1915-6, it was rejected in 1917, its opposite came actively into being in 1918, with feverish extensions as the Armistice loomed near in November, all through 1919 it was exposed on a huge scale as a fallacy, and in 1920 a permanent Corps was estab- lished as absolutely essential to the Regular Army of the future.

Now that the history of 1914 is so dolorously repeating itself, now that it has been proved that short-sightedness is recurrent and that nothing has been learnt at all from the experience of the last War, it is worth while briefly to recall the facts. For let there be no mistake—to rectify, and as speedily as possible, the breakdown of Army education is vital: it must be rectified if we are to avoid not only national waste but also grave military embarrassments. That was abundantly proved in 1918, and there are many who know it. A modern Army, especially an Army which is " part of the nation " as our great civilian Army must be, is made up of men who have minds as well as bodies, and neither can be neglected with impunity.

As early as the autumn of 1914 this was felt to be true and an attempt was made by civilians to bring lectures, &c., to the troops under training. The military authorities then, as now (but now there is no excuse for the attitude), decreed that the troops had no time for anything but to be trained as soldiers, and they stopped the movement. They could not, however, kill it. It broke out again in an aggravated form not only in training camps in England, such as Brocton, Cannock Chase and Brentwood, but in France and else- where, until by the beginning of 5918 it was, though still wholly unauthorised, nevertheless definitely in being.

Authorisation had to come, but in spite of the most strenuous efforts, in spite, too, of the direct encouragement of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig who, in March, 1918, actually directed his General Staff to draw up a scheme of education for the troops—showing an almost comic belief in their ability to tackle any problem—it was not brought into being as an official scheme until September, 1918. From then on it functioned increasingly, and after the Armistice was officially declared to be " no longer a secondary consideration." The objects were described in the Army Order dated September 24th, 1918, to be as follows:

(a) To raise morale, both indirectly by providing mental stimulus and change, and directly by means of lectures on German methods, aims, &c.

(b) To broaden and quicken intelligence, both by stimulating a desire for study and by giving me, a wider realisation of their duties as citizens of the British Empire.

(c) To help men in their work after the war by practical instruc- tion, as far as may be possible, in :heir professions or trades.

Can any one say that these objects are not just as essen- tial in this war as they were in the last?

As a result of this Order an official organisation came into being, far too late and in many ways most hastily impro- vised, but one which did nevertheless certain essential things which can here be only summarised briefly*: First of all, it organised innumerable lectures (at one time we had 593 lecturers on our official list) and classes, and it supplied books " to all ranks wherever serving, so that (to quote the Army Order again) there may be no greater inequality of educational opportunity than the conditions of military service necessitate." By the end of 1918 over 3,00o,000 men were under its influence, to some extent at least, and by March, 1919, it had supplied 728,886 books.

Secondly, it entered into negotiations with all the academic and professional bodies for due recognition of the educational work done by the troops—a matter of as much importance as complexity.

Thirdly, by the issue of " Army Education Circulars," which went to every unit, it kept the troops in all fields of war informed of the work of the many Ministries, and inci- dentally the Ministries informed of the mental needs of the troops, and, after the Armistice, it was the main channel of information as to the opportunities, jobs, &c., awaiting the men on demobilisation.

Fourthly, by the issue of " Outline Lectures," it enor- mously facilitated the task of regimental officers in keeping alive the mental efficiency of their men.

Fifthly, by bringing educational facilities to the hospitals, it helped thousands of wounded soldiers towards recovery. By May, 1919, 17,815 patients (15 per cent. of those in hospital) were receiving instruction. (Vide Army Order, December 9th, 1918, " The Director-General, Army Medical Services, attaches great importance to educational work in hospitals because the awakening of mental interest accelerates recovery.") Sixthly, in more ways than can be recounted here it linked the Army and the nation and became ultimately one of the main links between war and peace.

Seventhly, it provided a mental meeting-ground with the

*The full history was given in my Education and the Army (Oxford University Press, 1921).

Dominion troops and also with the American, all of whom had similar organisations, linked them with ours at the War Office, and (let it be recorded) warmly thanked us for the help rendered to them.

Eighthly, it co-operated with similar work in the Navy and R.A.F.

And, finally, it became the basis for all proficiency pay and promotion in the non-commissioned ranks of the Regular Army—at long last education and proficiency were recognised as affiliated.

Of course, and beyond dispute, the main growth of this great movement was in the days, weeks and months follow- ing the Armistice, and corresponding days, weeks, and months are not yet with us. That is no argument at all for inaction now.

The real point is twofold (a) the essential need for the organisation was proved much before that, in the worst stresses of the War, in fact—Sir Douglas Haig's order to his General Staff was dated March 8th, 1918, just a week before the great German onslaught, and even that did not sweep the work away ; and (b) had the organisation been formed earlier its work would not have had to be so frenzied and it could have helped the Armies more effectually. I have only space here to mention that at the date of the Armistice work for the wounded was still only " under con- sideration " by the many Ministries concerned*—and there were many similar instances.

No, we have had our experience, and since June 15th, 192o, we have had an Army Educational Corps as an indispensable part of the Regular Army, replacing the old, *" If there ever should again be war on a national scale—which God and the League of Nations forbid—or on a small scale, this problem of the resettlement of the broken servants of the nation must be energetically tackled from the first days on which they are carried helpless into the wards. It is not enough to mend their bodies " (op. cit. p. 129). narrow Corps of Army Schoolmasters and making educa. tional training part of military training—" probably," wrote Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, then Chief of the Imperial General Staff, " the biggest step the Army has ever taken." Is it now all to be neglected? The idea behind the work of this war organisation was called by Mr. H. A. L. Fisher. then Minister of Education, " an invention hardly second in importance to the invention of fire-arms," and by thd Ministry of Reconstruction, " one of the most striking and unpredictable events of the war." It arose out of the needs of a democratic nation in arms: those needs have returned again in full force, and are we not going to profit by what has gone before? Are we to show ourselves the most short- sighted of peoples, remembering nothing? Discarding what was built and later (as must be inevitable) feverishk improvising in place of what we have thrown away? There is much more one could write, but space forbids: let me end with a quotation from The Times: It is the narrowest view to assume that this work will merek be the means of breaking the monotony of war ; it is that, but it will be infinitely more. It is the basis on which all recon- struction must rest. . . . Above all, it will make the Army what every national Army should be, a living educational force in the life of the nation . . . for the first time it has been officially conceded that it is not enough for a Commander to ensure as far as he can the physical fitness and efficiency of his men but that he is responsible for providing them with mental faciline5 also ; it is moreover officially recognised, also for the first time, that the more intelligent a man is the more easily and quickly he can be trained to be a soldier.

Those words were written when the work first took official form: its permanent establishment in 1920 showed that they were held then to have been proved true. They are still more true today than they were in 1920—and yet we step back, not forward. No greater blunder was ever com- mitted by the Government of a democracy ; and it must be retrieved without delay if both Army and nation are not to reap the bitter consequences.