Playboy of the Western Front?
Allan Mallinson
THE LETTERS OF LIEUTENANT- COLONEL CHARLES A COURT REPINGTON: MILITARY CORRESPONDENT OF THE TIMES, 1903-1918 edited by A. J. A. Morris Sutton, £50, pp. 380 ho is Repington?' the First Sea Lord inquired rhetorically of the Secretary of State. for War. 'A man who has been kicked out of the army and turned out of all his clubs.' But Repington was a Times man. 'We are the Times,' wrote one of its future editors, Henry Wickham Steed, in 1908. 'We mould today and shape tomor- row ... We are where the real power lies... We get the ear of and influence those who have the ear of the masses.' Repington cer- tainly thought so. If any epitaph is to be believed, then his is noteworthy: 'The most brilliant military writer of his day. His pen was entirely devoted to the service of Eng- land and the army that he loved.' He might even have achieved the highest ranks in the army. Eton, the Rifle Brigade, fluent French, a reputation for brilliant staff work, and a network of influential friends — his future looked good. In 1898 he was appointed the first military attaché to Brussels and the Hague (with Paris and Berlin the most important embassies from a military point of view). When the Boers invaded Natal a year later, Sir Redvers Buller asked for him for his headquarters. Repington's work in South Africa, some- times in action, gained him a CMG, but enteric fever meant being invalided home after a year. He resumed his posts in the Low Countries, where public opinion was hostile and pro-Boer. And then on 14 Jan- uary 1902 the London Gazette gave peremptory notice that Colonel Repington would retire.
Repington felt aggrieved. True, he had been having an affair, had given his word that it was ended and had then resumed it — but only when he considered that the terms of his undertaking had been broken by the other husband. No doubt things would be different today, but the military secretary and adjutant general hardly gave him a hearing: the divorce had been reported in the Times, and 'there was much talk in the clubs'. The commander-in-chief, Lord Roberts, concluded, 'You cannot be permitted to continue in His Majesty's Ser- vice ... You will forthwith send in your application to retire.'
The details are hardly important and have been chronicled elsewhere. The key thing is the part played by Lieutenant- Colonel (later Field Marshal) Henry Wil- son. Wilson was a fellow Rifle Brigade officer and had been privy to the original undertaking as a 'friend' of both parties. There is no doubt that he could have tried to save 'his more brilliant colleague', as some have put it. And he might have been successful, since Repington's dismissal was based on his having broken his word, rather than on the affair itself. But Wilson, in Repington's view, dissembled (there are plenty of historians who would say that in the light of Wilson's subsequent track record it was hardly surprising). The upshot of it all was that Repington would never trust him again. Like many a dishonoured officer before and since, Repington went abroad for expi- ation and to earn a crust. The Russo- Japanese war gave him his chance, and following his reports for the Times he was appointed a staff correspondent on the paper. Within a year or so of his humiliat- ing departure from the army he was there- fore in a position of influence and some power (at least by the Times's own reckon- mg) — not exactly circumstances that the psychologist would recognise as ideal. By 1914 he had become a figure of substance, hated as much as respected depending on viewpoint (he was certainly no friend of Fisher and the 'blue water school'). He had easy access to ministers and the Committee of Imperial Defence. He was even taking a part in the secret Anglo-French staff talks. He fell out with most politicians at some stage, however. Of Arnold-Forster his high hopes were soon dashed; Haldane was a hero and then a huge disappointment, Seely much the same, Lloyd-George even more so.
How good Repington's judgment was is as interesting as how much influence he exerted. At its best it was extraordinarily prescient. In January 1906, writing to Lord Esher, chairman of the committee on army reform, he declared that in a clash with Germany 'the heart of the war is on the Meuse and all else is mere tickling the extremities'. His judgment of people was equally trenchant but inevitably there was a personal element. Sometimes he would modify his views: to Haig, for instance, he gave increasing credit as the war went on. But about Wilson he never changed his opinion. In July 1905 he wrote to Esher about his erstwhile abuser: I confess I feel rabid at the news that Wilson is to succeed Rawly at the Staff College. Wil- son is an arch-intriguer and a second-rate place-hunter: if this impostor is to train our future General Staff it will never be trained ... I shall take no steps of course, but it is very disheartening.
A year later, though, he was pressing Esher to take steps himself:
,..on Friday last some S.[taff] C.[ollege] offi- cers came up to me and asked me to try to prevent this job. They say that they know Wilson and despise him and detest his char- acter ... It is difficult to overestimate the influence for good or evil of the commandant at the S.C. and I hope that you may be able to do something to get a first-rate man put there when Rawlinson leaves this autumn.
He would never even acknowledge the part that Wilson was to have as director of military operations in bringing the BEF to battle at the right time and the right place in August 1914, though they had shared the unfashionable conviction that Belgium would be the cockpit and Repington had done much to help bring about the staff talks at which Wilson had presided.
In October 1917, amidst speculation that Wully' Robertson was to be dismissed as CIGS, Repington wrote to Geoffrey Daw- son, his editor:
Robertson is trusted by the army, by our commanders, by the public, and by our allies. The man who is likely to replace him is Wil- son, who is distrusted by the chief men in our army and is bride with the French because he intrigued against Petain and Painleve's poli- cy, and is in my opinion a political general of the worst type. He has done nothing in the war but lose a part of the Vimy ridge on 21 May, 1916. He will do anything that the politicians tell him, and as I am profoundly distrustful of his judgment I expect the worst consequences from the change. I do not know any military question that has arisen during the war in which you can more help, or mar the cause than by your action now. What had been his earlier judgment of Haig? To Bonar Law in November 1915 he had written:
I do not believe that the appointment of Sir D. Haig to the Commander-in-Chief will be in the public interest. Haig is a staff officer. He is not, and will never be, a commander. I have watched his operations in peace and war, and have never observed in him any tal- ent for command. He is incapable of convey- ing his views to subordinates by word of mouth ... I seek in vain for the Wellington type. Allenby comes the nearest to it, but he too is from the cavalry. Charles Munro has character, decision and intelligence but will I fear be dragged down with this Salonika adventure.
Smith-Dorrien has the character needed in the high command. Of the younger men Cavan, and next Gough, are the best. Robertston and Sir A. Murray I admire and trust greatly, but both are best in the posi- tions which they now hold. I know of no one who excels French in the qualities of charac- ter needed in high command.
History would not vindicate such a list, and perhaps we may conclude therefore that Repington's judgment was at best erratic. This does not lessen the impor- tance of his letters, however, for they cover almost everything that was of concern to the army during the decade before 1914, and the war itself. Professor Anthony Mor- ris has dug deep into the archives, found much that is new, and does not seem to have balked at the sheer logistical chal- lenge of this long-awaited compilation. The volume is curiously silent on the Curragh incident, though, and it would have been interesting to know Professor Morris's cri- teria for including letters. There is the odd slip here and there: Lord Cromer becomes Evelyn Waring, for instance. A ten-page index also seems less than generous for a volume of this importance.
These are motes, however, in otherwise impressive scholarship. The letters them- selves — informed, thoughtful, gossipy, enlightening, sometimes immensely shrewd — make fascinating reading, an absorbing commentary on that great struggle and what preceded it. Repington emerges as very much more than 'the playboy of the Western Front', as one historian has dis- missed him. Anthony Morris's long intro- ductory essay is, quite simply, brilliant, and his annotation of both essay and letters assiduous. It is a book that no serious stu- dent of the period could neglect. Sadly, the price may tempt him to do so. However, there is a good wheeze: the price of annual membership of the Army Records Society (currently £15), the joint publishers with Sutton, includes this their annual publica- tion post-free. Details from the Hon. Sec., c/o National Army Museum, London SW3 4HT.
Allan Mallinson's second military historical novel, The Nizam's Daughters, is published by Bantam on 9 March.
Previous page
