THE SPION SOP DESPATCHES. [To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—In your excellent article on the Spion Kop despatches in the Spectator of April 21st you write :—" It is very difficult to say in the abstract at what point a superior should super- sede a subordinate, but one thing is certain. The man who cannot discover that point in practice does not possess one of the essential qualities of generalship"; and you add, a few lines further on, that you do not " presume to declare that this particular failure of generalship was of sufficiently grave a kind to necessitate or to justify his [i.e., Sir R. Buller's] with- drawal." With reference to this, let me recall to your recol- lection what occurred on August 18th, 1870. General von Steinmetz was ordered to attack the French position both in front and flank. He made one futile attack after anotheron the front, but neglected to carry out his orders to attack the flank. His operations were conducted under the eyes of the "officer in supreme command" of the German armies. Daring the battle Steinmetz was not interfered with, but very shortly afterwards he was removed from his command, The world and the army were not informed that the fiasco which, had it not been for the victory at St. Privat, might have been disastrous to the whole army, was due to "the disinclination of the officer in supreme command to assert his authority and see that what he thought best was done." Moltke's example of non-interference during actual operations appears to have been followed by Sir R. Buller. It would, perhaps, have been as well if his example as regards the other points had
been followed too.—I am, Sir, &e., F. E.
• Cry of victory.
Previous page
