LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER AND MR. STANHOPE.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " EPNCTATOR."] SIB, I note that in the Spectator of December 19th you express a very favourable opinion of Mr. Stanhope's recent speech in defence of our existing Army organisation.
I have no right to question your judgment, but I should like to point out that in one or two matters you have accepted from Mr. Stanhope statements which are most incorrect and mis- leading. You accept the view expressed by the Secretary of State that we stand in the same condition as other Powers with respect to our First Line and Reserve. This, however, is very far from being the case. A German regiment has so many men in the ranks, and so many in the Reserve. /n the event of war, the reservists are added to the men with the colours, and the regiment is brought up to war strength. It is true that in the event of mobilisa- tion_ taking place daring the first six months of the military year, a certain number of recruits are withdrawn for a short time, and put through a special course of "forced " training. But the number of these men is always precisely known, and calculated upon. If mobilisation takes place- daring the last six months of the military year, the regiment takes the field reinforced by the whole of the reservists. Here, the case is totally different. So inefficient is our first line, that there are scores of battalions in which from 35 to 80 per cent. of the men serving with the colours are un- qualified for foreign service. Instead, therefore, of the recruits. being added to the men with the colours, they will have to- take their places. I say, therefore, that there is no analogy at all between the condition of our regiments and those of Continental Powers. The system as it is worked at present in our Army is a fraud, of which the public does not yet understand the full extent. I shall certainly do what little I can to expose it..
On another point Mr. Stanhope is very misleading. He says, and says truly, that the standard of height in our Army is higher than that of foreign Armies. The fact is as stated, but Mr. Stanhope appears not to have remembered that • foreign Armies are conscript Armies. We put our standard at 5 ft. 4 in. or 5 ft. 5 in., and we gladly accept any recruit who comes up to that figure. In a foreign Army, the standard may be 5 ft. 1 in., but the whole male population above that height must go into the ranks. What we want to know is, not the standard for recruits, but the average height of men serving, an entirely different matter. As a matter of fact, an enor- mous number of men are rejected in Germany as being physically unfit ; the smallest and least capable of those accepted are allotted to the train, medical departments, &c.
With regard to the general question of Army organisa- tion, may I be allowed to say a word ? I certainly do not attach undue weight to any opinions I may have expressed with regard to Army matters ; bat in my letters to the Times I confined myself almost exclusively to allegations of fact. Now, I submit that the value of a fact is independent of the person who states it. If the things I said were true, then beyond all doubt the condition of our Home Army is very serious indeed, and no speech by a Secretary of State or any other responsible official can be " excellent" or satisfactory which does not dispose of them. I maintain that my facts are absolutely correct; they certainly have not been touched as yet by any critic; on the contrary, the evidence which I had accumulated before writing to the Times, is now so enormously strengthened by the detailed information I have received from officers in all branches of the service at home and abroad, that I feel my position absolutely secure. No one who has seen what I have seen, or learnt what I have learnt, can possibly accept Mr. Stanhope's speech as being either excellent or adequate.—I am, Sir, &c., • H. 0. ARNOLD-FORSTER.
Previous page
