New-York tribune., 1919-07-18
B o oks
By Haywood Bro,,n
GERMANY. in all truth, has eroru

II l..
answer for without also being mad.
responsible for the charges implied in hu
morous anecdotes. Margaret Deland =.
rounding off her case against the un, =. ~
Small Things" writes, "And l recall, H..
the revealing remark of German. a roa,.
Der OF commission which, before the rr..
was travelling in America: Yes h. 60.
we found your railroad cars very comfo.s
able-except the sleeping cars. .Our r;.'-
don't like to climb into the upper ber+h., ~
1t may be remembered that one q, ~.
attacks made against England dur;ns ~
war by famous German propapand;,t -Ao
contained in the story of the Er,,;.,
woman who went to the hospita, With
badly wounded face and upon being askea
whether she had been bitten by dog. -.
piled, mo, another lady"
Then, Of course, the honor of the rrr;..s.
States is called into question by the w.
about the man from Chicago who fool, ~,
wife to big New York restaurant and
dered two broiled Holsters. The waiter =.
turned to report that only one rema;rns
"Only one lobster!" exclaimed thu 49,
from Chicago, "but what's my wife oo;na
to eatl" e'"S
Still again number Of persons in ANA.
lea cannot bring themselves to symnath;v.
with the Sim Fein movement beca,s. -
the we'll known meeting between two rr;.h
men at which one inquired. "Who was .bo.
lady seen you walking down the s+ro..
with ?" to which the other replied "rh..
was no lady, you chump; that was nv
wife"
MI
The 1rishman's offence was not alone ona
OF taste but Of brutality as we'll, for we al,
know that as he said "You chump." he hi.
his friend violently over the head with
duli' blunt instrument. All this, in addi-
ton to tho Ulster problem, makes the solp.
tlon Of the difficulties of Ireland seem in.
surmountable to many students of inter.
national affairs.
Moreover, the success of the nronos.a
league Of nations is questioned bv manv
persons on account of the revelation con-
tained in the story about the Jugo-Sl who
sald' Yes, but amt we going to give any
to dear old mother?" We have fo,yotten
the exact details of the story, but as we
remember it was equally damning to the
national aspirations of the Slovenes
Frank P. Sibley, who followed, or rather
shared, the fortunes of the Yankee Division
IN France, and reported what he observed
IN letters to "The Boston Globe" has as
sembled his correspondence in a book
called with the Yankee Division in
France" which is published by Little.
! Brown & Co. Suitably enough the book is
dedicated to General Charles H. Taylor. the
owner of "The Globe" for Mr. SiSley has
carefully followed one precept laid down
by that journalist General TAYLOR is re-
ported to have explained the success Of
his newspaper on the ground that he
printed the name Of every man, woman
and child in Boston at least twice a year.
Mr.. Sibley has been equally generous in
supplying the soldier names SO long denied
to the American public by censorship The
book, therefore, should be intensely inter-
esting to all who were connected with the
New England Division, as it embodies the
personal touch which was absolutely lack
ing in all the early books about American
participation in the war. Sibley has not
only observed the happenings around him
minutely, but he has recorded these in an
interesting way. The book however, has
more than a local interest, as it contains a
good deal of vigorous criticism of tho
American war machine. The authors con-
clusion seems to be summed up in tho
sentence "Our big net results were splen-
did; our inner details were often things
one could not be proud over"
Most Of the details in which Sibley thinks
the American army did badly were matters
where the human equation was neglected.
He protests against the system whereby
wounded men were not sent back to their
own division when they recovered, but to
a replacement division or depot from
whence they might be assigned to any div-
sion which was in need of men. ain the
French army" writes Sibley, "a man re-
covered was sent back to his own regiment.
In our army the was regarded as just
SO much material for the line He was like
issue breeches. When I asked why the thing
was done in this way, officers explained
that the United States army was one army,
and it did not matter, as to the efficiency
of the whole, in which unit a man was
placed. 1t mattered to the man, but the
army did not consider that If a man had
pride in his company, his regiment, his d.
vision, his morale was lowered if he wasn't
allowed to go back to it. Americans do
not like to be reduced to the level Of
'kanonenfutter.'
Probably no American correspondent in
France was close to the enlisted men
Frank P. Sibley. His point Of view is
nearly always that of the man in the ranks.
There are advantages and disadvantages in
this When Sibley begins to write about
army politics his accounts are interesting,
but they must be accepted as views formed
without an investigation which has pene
trated every possible angle of the in
point. This does not mean that they are
wrong On the contrary, they are excellent
testimony, but they not complete testi-
monv Althouoh General Parsb;no ia not