(To THE EDITOR or THII " SPECTATOR."] Sat,—Your article on
Lord Esher's " appreciation " of Lord Kitchener recalls an effort which was made to take advantage by.voluntary registration of the wave of patriotic enthusiasm which surged over the country on the outbreak of war. A simple scheme was drawn up—of which I was part author— for using the machines of both political parties, the post, and the Press—with coupons—which would have made it an easy matter for anyone to register his willingness to serve his country and at the same time to give the essential facts about his capacities. The late Mr. Percy Illingworth and Lord Edmund Talbot (Lord Fitzalan) agieed on behalf of their parties to place their machinery at the disposal of the War Office to help in the work of registration and—at a later stage —in canvassing. The other author of the scheme, Captain It. C. Kelly, and myself saw the then Director-General of Recruiting, Sir Henry Rawlinson, at the request of Lord Roberts, who heartily approved of the scheme. Sir Henry's heart was in France and his work at the War Office transitory, nor had he the experience which might have enabled him to judge the merits of the scheme and phrhaps adopt it. He sent for a staff officer of the type which always says either that a thing is impossible or that it has already been done. This officer conveyed the impression, without saying so explicitly, that the thing had been done, which was, of course, untrue. Foiled in this quarter we sought to get Lord Kitchener's ear and succeeded. Lord Kitchener met a few people at dinner at the house of the late Lord Glenoonner, and amongst others—the Party was eight in number—the then Under-Secretary for War, Mr. H. J. Tennant, M.P., and Sir William Garstin—one of Lord Kitchener's real friends—were present. The scheme was
explained to Lord Kitchener, who expressed no opinion about it at the time, but who, I believe, said to one of the guests on his way home that he thought it all nonsense.
This opinion is not in the least surprising in view of the fact that Lord Kitchener's whole life had been spent not only away from England, but in an atmosphere which could not enable him to judge of up-to-date Western publicity methods. But why should he be blamed? There was nothing clever or original about the scheme. Any practical man could have prophesied that it was certain to succeed, and if anyone with ordinary intelligence and the pluck of a rabbit had been instructed to carry it out, the thing would have been done without bothering Lord Kitchener with a problem which he could not possibly understand, and for which he should only have been responsible theoretically.
It may be urged that Lord Kitchener would have interfered. I do not believe it. I had the pleasure in the spring of 1915 to work for him in organizing the Armament Committees on the Tyne and the Clyde, and he gave me the freest of free hands. and it happened to be necessary to drive the work in question along pretty fast regardless of the susceptibilities of potentates both in the official and industrial world. I am not mentioning these facts for egotistical reasons or with any suggestion that Lord Kitchener gave me exceptional treatment. Quite the reverse. I state, without fear of contradiction, that Lord Kitchener never interfered with a man who knew his job and was not afraid to do it. Most of the mistakes with which Lord Kitchener is debited—so far as recruiting and munitions go—were due to 'the failure of subordinates whom he had not chosen, and who were either incompetent or so terrified of him —or both—that they created the disorganization which Lord Esher and others attribute to Lord Kitchener's methods. In the first eighteen months of the vat. I happened to come across a good many highly-placed people, some of whom have achieved great reputations as organizers of war. As regards superficial things and details, some of them were no doubt very com- petent, but when it came to essentials, perspective, and the fundamental principles of organization they were mere automata compared to the constructive genius and brilliant capacity of Lord Kitchener.
If some reliable and well-informed writer would com- pile a list of the handicaps, political and other, which afflicted Lord Kitchener, and which are certainly not realized in their true perspective in Lord Esher's book, the marvel would be that Lord Kitchener ever managed to make anything but mistakes. The whole-hearted and self. sacrificing efforts of a man to whom the instincts, not only of the British Empire but also of France, jumped are ill described by Lord Esher, who claims to have been his friend, as a " tragedy." The real tragedy is that Lord Kitchener did not survive to arrange the terms of peace. While he was alive we had no serious differences with France, and not even the poli- ticians and their tame Press could have prevented him from dominating the Peace Conference. He stands out for all time as the only man of any nationality who envisaged the war in its true perspective, and it is fair to claim that he would have ,been equally pre-eminent in the vision and genius—hitherto conspicuously lacking—required• to give a chance of recupera- tion to a distracted world after the cessation of hostilities. On the evening before he sailed in the 'Hampshire' he expressed himself to his most trusted friend as happy and confident about th3 future, and he was then looking forward to victory in the war, and to a happy issue out of all our afflictions in the negotiations after peace. Lord Kitchener has been belittled by little men, but never by a big one. King George and his Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, truly represented the British Empire in their appreciation of the man who, when all is said and done, enabled the British people, in spite of the politicians, to destroy the military domination of Prussia.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
