FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1918
1918 - 0493.PDF
MAY 2, 1918. of air stations, and general schemes for works and aerodromes—that covers,briefiy, the sphere assigned to the Chief of the Air Staff " covers. That catalogue seems to be a fairly clear and exhaustive account of the dutiesallocated to the Chief of the Air Staff. Quite obviously, with such a clear state- ment of the functions of the office, one wonders how this difference of opinionwhich is alleged to have taken place has arisen. It may be that a clue is to be found to that in a letter addressed by the late Secretary of State to the hon.and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Faber), which appeared in the newspapers on April 15th, in which the Secretary of State said he proposed to establish astrategic council, whatever that may mean. If that is the case, are we to under- stand that the Government proposes to issue a new Order in Council with aview to entirely recasting the duties and functions of the various members of the existing Air Council ? Obviously, in the allocation of duties to the variousmembers of the existing Council, aU the duties in relation to strategy and to tactics were entrusted exclusively to the Chief of the Air Staff, and one wouldimagine that that would be the most effective arrangement, and that it is better to concentrate the responsibility for such important matters upon a singleindividual rather than to diffuse it over a committee. We have had some experience already of strategic committees. The case of the Versailles WarCouncil is sufficient in itself to discredit for ever committees for the direction of strategy, and the fact that the Government has taken the logical course,which some of us always advocated, of going direct to our aim and selecting a Commander-in-Chief has shown the hopelessness of entrusting strategv to aCouncil of War. What we desire to know is what were the questions relating to the respectivefunctions of the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Staff upon which this difference arose. We have heard other accounts of what happened. In asupplementary question of Thursday week I made the suggestion that the difference between the Minister and his Chief of the Staff really related to policyin regard to new construction, and that while the Chief of the Air Staff was concerned that new construction of aeroplanes should be used in the first instancefor maintaining existing squadrons at full strength with a view to efficiency in the field, and also from the point of view of its effect upon the men themselves,on the other hand the Secretary of State was rather concerned in multiplying the number of squadrons with a view to presenting the achievements of hisMinistry in a more spectacular form. If that was the issue between them, there is no doubt on which side the verdict of this Committee would be. It wouldprefer the view of the Chief of the Air Staff to that of the Secretary of State. And as a great number of people have heard this explanation, it is of the utmostimportance that we should have a clear and definite answer from the Govern- ment as to whether that was the issue between them, and if it was, the Govern-ment would have some difficulty in defending its position here. Another suggestion has been made that when the matter came before theWar Cabinet, the War Cabinet itself did not really seek to come to a decision on the merits upon that particular point, but came to the view that mattershad reached such a stage that it was impossible for both the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Air Staff to continue in their respective posts at the Ministry,that in these circumstances one or the other required to go, and the decision of the War Cabinet was that it preferred to retain Lord Rothermere and to allowGeneral Trenchard to go, not on the merits but simply on the ground of the desirability of retaining or dispensing with either one or the other of thesegentlemen. If that is the case, now that a change has been made in the Secretary- ship of State, the War Cabinet has an opportunity of changing its position inregard to General Trenchard. We can only assume from the announcement in the Press that the War Cabinet accepted General Trenchard's resignationwith the greatest reluctance and regret. We must assume that they had no idea that he was incapable of being the head of a thinking Department, as someof the underlings say, and in these circumstances that they were not inclined to use his resignation as the equivalent of a dismissal. If that is so now, whenthere is a change in the Secretary of State, and when a former colleague of General Trenchard on the Air Council, with whom so far as we know he hasnever had any difference, is the new Secretary of State, surely an opportunity occurs of restoring to the service of the Air Force the great ability, experience,organising capacity and high personal qualities of General Trenchard. This can be done, I think, without any reflection upon the late Secretary of State,and I hope the Government will be able to see it in that light. Those connected with the Air Force are united in the view that his resignation has had not onlyan unfortunate but even a disastrous effect upon the Air Force itself. They all feel it keenly, and they fear that less than justice has been done to an officerin whose career they take a special delight, with whom they have all worked, and to whose energy the success of the force in France has been very largelydue. Would it not be well to put an end to this feeling of soreness and restore, as it were, the confidence which, to a certain extent, has been undermined bythese events, by reinstating General Trenchard in the force as Chief of the Air Staff ? I think that is a fair and reasonable request to make. Of course, I cannot prejudice the case, because I do not know all the circum-stances. Until an explanation is given I have no title to speak as to whether the dismissal of General Trenchard is right or wrong, but what I think I amentitled to say is that those who are actually serving and who are doing the work all hold one opinion on this matter. That is all I think I have a right to say, andthat is all I will venture to say. I may be wrong and I may be contradicted, but I do say without much fear of contradiction that there is in the whole AirService in France disgust at the dismissal of General Trenchard. Lord Hugh C,ecil: My intervention in this discussion is, I hope, not in anunduly controversial vein. My desire is to contribute to the public interest and to assist, as far as a member of this House can assist, in making the AirForce of the Crown as powerful as we all desire it to be. I have received from one or two friends some very kindly-meant words of counsel against my speakingin this Debate, because of the circumstances. I was, a short time ago, very slightly occupied in a very subordinate position in the Air Ministry. As a matterof fact that would not have affected my speech on this occasion, because it is not my desire to enter into a controversial spirit as to anything that is past;and as my connection with the Air Ministry is at an end, obviously my mouth is perfectly free. My connection with the Air Ministry is of the past, and thatpast has been closed by Lord Rothermere's resignation. I desire to express the warmest sympathy with the tragic circumstances which caused that resignation.I cannot, however, speak very respectfully of the Prime Minister's letter accepting that resignation, and perhaps the kindest thing to say of it is that it is the effortof a strong Celtic imagination. It was not a statement of fact, but an essay in haeiokv'y, and as often in hagiology the legendary element very strongly pre-dominates in it. Still the past is over, and I for one am not going to provide any controversy in regard to it. We have a new Secretary of State, and I desireto congratulate the Government very heartily on the appointment they have made Sir William Weir is a man who deserves the warmest confidence he canreceive He is deeply respected by everybody who knows him, both as a very able man and as a man in whose integrity and good sense the strongest trust canbe placed It is indisputable—and I do not think the Government will dispute it—that the Air Service has suffered two great losses quite recently. It lostSir David Henderson, who presided over the Flying Corps almost from its com- mencement until it extended itself and became the great and memorable forceit has become He is a man of the most encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject, a knowledge which could not well be dispensed with by any Government orMinistry He is full of resource and most active in every respect, and he is a man whose services ought not to be lost to the country in connection with theMr Force There would be no one more useful to the Government in advising the War Cabinet on aerial matters—no one who would better be able to makeclear to them what most needs making clear, no one who would be readier with advice or resource when an emergency has to be dealt with, and I am sure thatif they had had Sir David Henderson at their elbows when the recent disputes were under discussion several serious mistakes would have been avoided. But if possible a still heavier loss has been occasioned by the resignationof Sir Hugh Trenchard, and I want to tell the Government how great that loss is. First let me say it must be realised that Sir Hugh Trenchard is a greatorganiser. No one who saw any ot his work in France, as 1 have done two or three years ago, can doubt his extraordinary capacity for organising. Thatcapacity arises partly from having a very strong memory and great power of detail, partly from having an extraordinary acquaintance with ll>e distribu-tion of the work, and partly from his personality which made fur quickness of decision and which enabled him to build up the Air Force in Krauee untilit became the great body it now is. In the recent battle the Royal Air Force has done magnificently and the organisation of its work and the credit for itbelongs to Sir Hugh Trenchard. fc If you have a man like Sir Hugh Trenchard at the head of your Air Force,perhaps you may find he will not always listen to the ideas of every amateur strategist in the Cabinet quite as sympathetically as that strategist mightdesire. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George): Why does the noble Lord saythat ? No amateur strategist iii the Cabinet ever suggested anything to Sir Hugh Trenchard while he was in the Air Force. The noble Lord has reallyno right to say that. Does he know of any amateur strategist in the Cabiuet who ever suggested anything ? If not, he has no right to say that. Lord H. Cecil: 1 am not suggesting that. The Prime Minister is very sensir tive •The Prime Minister: Sensitive, because there is so much talk of this kind of thing going on. 1 can imagine no such suggestion going from the Cabinetto Sir Hugh Trenchard. Lord H. Cecil: I am very glad to find the Prime Minister has said whst u£has said, because it accords with my own impression. I will tell him quite frankly what was in my mind. What 1 have heard Sir Hugh Treuchard criti-cised for, in conversation—I am anxious most frankly to respond to what the Prime Minister says—-is that he would not accept new ideas if they were putbefore him. 1 believe that to be utterly and entirely untrue. All that was in my mind was that conceivably somebody had said something to him that hedid not receive very responsively. The Prime Minister : Not in the Cabinet.Lord H. Cecil: I am very glad to hear -that. Considering that the Prime Minister has lost a great public servant, and that all we are doing is to pointout how great the loss is, I do not think he need show himself so very sensitive. The Prime Minister: The noble Lord surely ought to know what I mean.He talks about the interference of amateur strategists in the Cabinet with Sir Hugh Trenchard. He has not the slightest ground lor making the suggestion—not the slightest; and instead of apologising, as he ought to have done, hi' makes one of the most offensive suggestions it is possible to make. Lord H. Cecil: 1 am certainly not going to withdraw a syllabic of what I said.Everything I said was proper and right. If the Prime Minister supposes that he is going to browbeat critics he ill understands the House oi which he is aMember, or the particular Member who is venturing to address the Committee at this moment. [Hon. Members: "Sit down!" "Shut upl"l My onlypurpose is to try and persuade the Government of what 1 am confident is in the public interest. An Hon. Members You are abusing them 1Lord H. Cecil: I am abusing the right hon. gentleman himself, because ,1 think he is treating me very badly, and is behaving very badly to the Committee.[An Hon. Member: " Abuse is not argument 1 "] Neither is interruption in debate, I might say. I certainly did not desire to wander into the controversialvein, and if the Prime Minister had not been present I should not have wandered into it. I am anxious merely to serve the public interest. 1 do want to putbefore the Government and the Committee the great loss that has taken place. They have lost a man who is a great organiser, a great leader, and a man who ba>an unequalled knowledge of the subject. We are speaking of strategy. How can you conduct strategy if you have not adequate knowledge ? There is nogreat professional tradition in the matter. You do not have a staff college at present, though you may have one later, turning out a regular supply, week afterweek, year after year, of competent officers who have an outlined knowledge of aerial strategy as they have of military strategy. You have not a great bodyof competent men to draw on. Therefore, if you quarrel with the most com- petent men in your service, the loss is, in a way, irreparable. There is no otherknowledge available, except what lies in the minds of one or two individuals, and if you are going to carry out strategy you must have recourse to that knowledgeor you will do it amiss. I entreat the Government to act wisely and take the advice of those who do understand these things before they make up their mindsthat they can go without the services of so valuable an officer. The Prime Minister: I am very anxious in the present state of public affairs,especially military affairs, to avoid anything in the nature of unnecessary dis- putation, and I am especially anxious to do so when we come to discuss a forcelike the Air Force and the internal administration of this force. I listened to the speech first of all of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North-We»tLanark (Mr. Pringle), and I confess that after listening most carefully 1 really do not quite know what he was driving at. 1 do not quite know the point ofhis criticism, except that I should like to say this at once with regard to one statement he made. He seemed to be under the iropreision that the differencesin the Air Force were attributable to something which had not the remotest connection with it. I can reassure him and the Committee on this subjectat once, with regard to the number of aeroplanes for one particular purpose or another. I now come to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil),and with regard to most of it let me say at once, I agree. Certainly I agree with every word he said about the great, the distinguished, and the remarkableservice rendered by Sir Hugh Trenchard to the count ry. There is not a word of that which the Government does not adopt. There is not a word there whichI should not wish In every particular to support and to enforce if I could possibly do so. There is one proposition, however, he laid down which I certainly do notaccept, and I think it is necessary that I should at once tell him BO. I am referring to his claim that Members of Parliament serving in the various branchesof the Army have a different standard of discipline to others who are not Members of Parliament. [Hon. Members: "In this House?"] That is so. What isthe position with regard to that ? It is, I think, very derogatory to the whole discipline of the Army. It was one of the first questions brought to my notice when I was Secretary ofState for War in the late Administration. The Army Councilcalled my attention to the fact that there were several Members oi Parliament who were serving inthe Army and who were utilising knowledge which they got as officers in the Army in order to criticise Army adminislraticn in this Hcuse, and they said :" This is extremely unfair to the Higher Command. It is extremely unfair to those who have the direction of the Army, and these Members ought to decidebetween being Members of Parliament and being officers." I think it ought to be stated at once that this has nothing to do with the merits of this particulardispute, but I think it ought to be stated once and for all that for any Member of Parliament to feel that he has got a diflerent standard of discipline applicableto him from the discipline which is applicable to the least significant member of any force is to claim something that ought at once to be put an end to. The Prime Minister : I do not say that 1 can state in clear, precise, technicallanguage the exact limit, but what I mean is this, that an officer actually serving, whether in military service, whether in the trenches or elsewhere, that be oughtnot to use Information he gets in that capacity for the pnrpose of criticising -491
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
