The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1919-07-29
Literary Digest.)

exchanges call the controversy over
who won the war launched byl
FieldMarshal Sir Douglas Haig when
ne said recently that 1T is right to
speak of our Allies, but it was the
British army that won the war" To
be sure, he was talking to his own
soldiers and to his own people, as
Secretary Baker explains, and Sir
Douglas appears not to have foresern
the effect his words might have if
caught up by outsiders and passed
around Great Britain's Allies. 1t is
Nj effect equivalent to German prop
aganda, because, we are told, if per-
sisted in, 1t may stir up animosities
among mot the Allied statesmen nor
the poison-proof Allied diplomats, but
the plain people of the Allied coun.
tries" That it is already tending
that way, to some small extent is in
dicated by occasional letters to the
editors of American newspapers. For
Instance. subscriber reviews the
Haig episode in New York daily,
and asks:
How is it that before the Ameri-
cans went in he sent a message to|
America that he and his troops were
lighting with their backs to the wall?
1t is a popularity OF the English mot
British) that whoever participated in
the fight. nobody but themselves
should gain the credit; the same way
when France was their ally in the
Crimea. 1t appears to me that the
American army really won the war,
for when Russia fell out, Germany
had France and Eng ,and on their last
legs
Precisely this sort of talk is what
leads the Philadelphia Public Ledger
TO eXclaim, IF this damfoolishness,
keeps up. it will be Germany that will
have won the war" and it continues.
"Of course. it is sublime nonsense
to talk OF any nation winning the
war Not one of them did it. No
man of knowledge who measures his
words can possibly mean that his
says so. All he can mean IS that II,
made a greater contribution than any
pther Allied belligerent to the com
mon task of winning the war.
But this is a most dangerous, di-
yisive, and unchivalrous subject to-
debate. If an American gentleman
and British gentleman and a French
gentleman were seated together in
cuss it. If the subject came up by
inadvertence they would each dwell.
not on the achievements of their own
people. but on the splendid deeds Of
flags of their friends. Why can not 4
whole nation behave in gentleman.
ly manner? Why can not it do so.
especially when there are bloodshed.
battle. and sudden death concealed in
any other course?
During the war we all developed
a form of emphasis to attract atle.:-
ton to any measure we suggested
.
ton that it (food, War Stamps. cOal.
Notwithstanding, peaCh-stOnes. or
what not would win the war But
we did not mean that these things
would win the war without any as
sistance We merely meant 10 say
with arresting force that they would
be valuable contributions to our mil
tary operations What the phrase
was intended to claim at first was
that the war might be lost without
Ihe commended a:,ic!e or cl but
1t got far beyond that ara r IS often
applied to things we could have won
without
"'Mr. Dooley once said there were
all sorts of people in tie Democratic
party. and that. even then. there
were often not enough of them.
lied ranks that won the war but he
would be daring individual who
would venture TO assert that we could
have done without any considerable
ial."
And there is glory enough for all.
as the New York Commercial argucg
in an editorial leading up to that
conclusion:
president Wilson i'm his Fourth
of July speech on board the George
Washington said in so many words