ALARMIST VIEWS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.1 SIR,—Your protest against the " hysteria " which appears to have seized upon some of the Press and the public comes at a good time. At a private dinner this week where the guests were representative business men, the general view taken of the situation was most gloomy. "Never do to give in," " Must go through with it," " Got our back against the wall,"–a these and similar expressions which were used serve to show what a ridiculously exaggerated idea of the situation has impressed itself upon men's minds. But this alarmist view is not only absurd, it has its dangerous side. For if we are to use the language of desperation when engaged in war with a people so few in number that they have practically all their men capable of bearing arms in the fighting line, where are we to find words to express our apprehensions and alarms if at war with an Empire as populous and as well armed as a France, a Germany, or a Russia ? And, again, if "we have our backs to the wall" now, if we have to screw our courage up to the sticking point, what would be our position if we had to meet foreign intervention, and where are we to find the reserve of courage wherewith to do it? It needs, Sir, such language as yours to bring this war to its proper proportion. Its result is certain, and merely a question of time. The one serious danger, I take it, is the foreign intervention to which you allude, and this danger is increased by the exaggerated tone used in dealing with the situation and the reverses we have met with. But as you very rightly say, we shall see this war through to the finish, even if it means war with half Europe. And after all, what are these reverses? They have been sustained in trying to do the next-to- impossible. What the Boers with five or six times his strength in men and guns have been unable to effect with Baden-Powell, we have tried to do with Cronje and Joubert with inferior numbers, and artillery certainly not superior. In the Daily Sews letters upon the Russo-Turkish War we find the writer dealing with the great Russian repulse before Plevna says that "with modern fire-arms, a simple mob, individually brave men, without discipline and without organisation, with moderately good marksmen, can hold entrenchments against even superior numbers of the best troops of the world as long as they are only attacked in the front." " In my opinion," he adds, "the whole system of attack upon even the simplest trenches will have to be completely changed in the future,—assaults, properly speaking, will have to be abandoned. Where such positions cannot be turned, then the attack must have re- course to the same means as the defence. Earth will have to fight earth. The attack will have to approach keeping as much under cover as the defence." Of course, supreme necessity may dictate an assault ; for its complete success, however, Skobeleff's plan of hurling successive regiments against the entrenchments would seem absolutely necessary. But to carry this out the regiments are required, and these we have not got at hand. The war, so far as it has gone, appears to me to make three things absolutely plain, the knowledge of which should enable us to face whatever the future holds in store for us with assured equanimity,—be it even war with half Europe. The first, that the Colonies can be relied upon to help us ; the second, that their help is well worth having ; the third, that the Volunteer forces we may comm and for the asking in Great Britain can, if they are taught to shoot, defend these shores against all comers, thus freeing our regular Army for service elsewhere. You say : " A full-dress rehearsal of our unrecognised mili- tary strength could do no harm." I would go further and say it could do nothing but good. Some form of general service for home defence must, I think, in the end be adopted, and might well be connected, as you suggest, with a scheme of old-age pensions.
Only one word I would ask leave to add. It is that when we welcome and rejoice over the loyalty and devotion the
Colonies are displaying to the Mother-country in the hour of trial, we should not forget the statesman who has had the control of Colonial affairs during these last few years, the statesman whose sympathy, tact, judgment, and courage in his responsible position have so largely helped to make Imperial unity an accomplished fact.—I am, Sir, &e.,
ROBERT YERBURGH.
We are glad to have such valuable support as Mr. Yerbnrgh's for our scheme for a Territorial Army, and we agree with him as to the value of the Imperial work done by the present Colonial Secretary. He has done a great deal to disabuse the Colonies of the notion that they are considered here as dependencies, and has made them realise that we regard them rather as parts of a whole—i.e., the British Empire—of which we too are only a part.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
