The New York herald., 1922-12-02
Assert General Succeeded
Despite French Staff and
Lloyd George.
DISCUSSION WAKES WARM
Omission of American Aid
Symptomatic of Way Europe
Looks on War.
SPECIAL Cable TO THE New Yonx HEsAIr.
Copyright, 1929, 5y THE NEW YORK HERALD

special Gable to THE New York HEnAIr.
Copyright, 1929, 5v THE NEW York HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau.
London. Dec. I.
An excellent explanation OF why
most of Europe thinks America ought
to cancel allied war debts was afforded
in this weeks wide and bitter discus
sion OF the claim put forward in a
book by Field Marshal Earl Haig's
secretary--that Haig's genius won the
war The name America appears In
no discussion OF the great climax Of
1918.
Earl Haig, who has declared that his
personal archives would be locked In
the British Museum for Atty years, Is
generally accredited with speaking
through the new book ("Sir Douglas
Haigs Command") by George A. e.
Dewar and Lieut.-Col. ]. II. Boraston.
who was Earl Haig's secretary In
France. At least, the authors assert
; they had access to all his private
papers.
The two volumes are full OF Dewar's
bitter invective against everybody but
Earl Haig. and Boraston's calm and dis
passionate accounts Of those phases of
Earl Haig's work. which suit their
thesis so set forth. For they have a
thesis. It is that Earl Haig won the
war by his own military genius, despite
the limitations OF Marshal Foch's STRAIT
egy. and despite the interference Of the
politician. Lloyd George.
~ Discussion Aroused
OF course this thesis has reused an
inflnity OF discussion. Foch's friends.
Lloyd Georges friends. the martyred
Field Marshal Sir Henry II. Wilson's
friends, Field Marshal Sir William Rob-
ertson's friends, every English or
French partisan OF any stripe. every
army politician and every partisan of
any color--all put in q word. And
throughout not single word Is said
o bout the army that happened to be the
second largest In the entire battle line
when Foch, in Col. Houses dining room
In the rue de rUniversite, Paris,
stormed the whole of one afternoon
and insisted that the German armlstice
demand should be accepted on the terms
re laid down in detail. with no other
questions.
There is much argument about the
useless sacrifice OF British and French
soldiers In defeat, from the first battle
OF Ypres TO Gen. Nivelle's Ill starred
tragedy In the Champagne in 1917. But
there is not a word any place In the
discussion of the preponderating weight
of man power in July, 1918, which
showed the Allies the first real
victories at Chateau -Thierry and the
final biting blow through the hitherto
"impenetrable" Argonne. Not "a word
OF the new swarms of destroyers that
helped crush the submarines.
II Is not merely national pride which
prompts these omissions from the dis
cussion Of the moment 1t is because
the omissions are symptomatic Of the
entire fashion in which Europe looks
upon American participation in the war
II Is part of the psychology that makes
Europeans wonder why America does
not cancel war debts, because they
did nothing else"
British Reaction CnfavorabIe.
II is only fair TO say that in general
British reaction to the book Is unfavor-
able. National pride naturally welcomes
kind word for the national COM
mander who Is still widely popular for
many reasons. But national honesty
likewise calls the authors claims to
genius for the estimable soldier and
gentleman partisan. prejudlced and ex-
aggerated.
The authors say that Earl Haig wanted
unity of command long before Foch
was named. despite the often printed
and we'll authenticated story OF. what
happened under the trees at Doullens,"
when Earl Haig IN the actual presence
OF Foch and Clemenceau refused for
some time 10 agree to a generalissimo.
despite the urging OF Lloyd George and
Lord Miner. on March 20. 1918 The
Germans had already broken through
The book ingeniously claims that cred
Il for winning the war should have
been Earl Halg's for his subsequent
victories, despite the fact that Foch
was Commander IN Chief IL utterly
fails to mention that while Halg had
undisputed command OF the British
forces for three years-and could not
have been seriously hampered by poll
tlcians when, he remained longer than
any other allied General--his one theory
was that the war would be won by a
break through on the mass principle.
and that even repeated failures TO break
through resulted in a war OF attritlon.
which In the end would win for the
Allies.
His break through attempts. though
ct n colossal cost OF lives. always were
OF such limited scale tflat the Germans
were able to outpinch the English
gains 80 long Earl Haig acted alone.
It was only when Foch conceived. do
signed and put into execution the giant
pincers WORKING with alternate bites
from Switzerland to the sea. using Haig.
the French and the Americans In
rhythmic perfection, that the war was
won.
Every one Is glad 20 read an earnest,
warm appreciation OF those soidieriv
qualities that Earl Haig undoubtedly