The Spectator at war

The Spectator at war: Push on to Paris?

1 September 2014

8:30 AM

1 September 2014

8:30 AM

The Spectator, 5 September 1914:

SEDAN Day has passed, but there has been no second Sedan, as the Germans so fondly hoped. Indeed, as far as one can yet learn, the day passed without any memorable action, for it would be absurd to count as memorable the pleasant little capture of ten German guns by the British cavalry near Compiegne. Granted reliance on Fabian tactics for the present—and we fully recognize that these are the right tactics to adopt in existing circumstances— we are well satisfied with the situation. The Germans, no doubt, are pressing on while we write, for their outposts were reported on Thursday to be only some forty miles from the outer circle of the Paris defences, and in all probability before these pages are in our readers’ hands they will have actually reached those defences and have exchanged shots with the girdle of star forts. As a consequence of this rush forward the Allied troops in the western theatre of the war have had to fall back continuously, so continuously, indeed, that our line is now facing almost west. That is a position of some peril for us, but it may also prove, if we can reinforce our line, as we believe we can, a position of grave anxiety for the Germans. If they now turn sharp east and try to throw us back in a north-easterly direction, and if they are successful in this, we shall have a very hard time of it. But this operation must delay the advance south upon Paris, and, if it is unsuccessful, or only partially successful, there will be a considerable menace to the German right wing. Enveloping strategy is magnificent, but it also offers many temptations to recklessness, and therefore involves many risks. Besides, looked at from the other side, it can be translated into terms of movement on interior lines.

Let us, however, assume that the worst will happen in the course of the next week—namely, that the Germans will push back the line of the Allies so far west that the road to Paris will be absolutely uncovered, and that not only will the northern defences of Paris be invested, but that the German troops will be in a position to cross the Seine west of Paris, say at Saint Germain, and east in the neighbourhood, say, of Meaux. Such a forward movement may, no doubt, oblige the French right and centre to retire also, and in another fortnight we may see the greater part of the northern and north-eastern departments in the hands of the Germans. In another three weeks, indeed, the Germans may be in possession of all the departments north of a line drawn from Pontarlier on the Swiss frontier, through Dijon and Paris, to Havre. But suppose this to have happened, and the whole eighty miles of the enceinte of the Paris fortifications to be also invested, what will the Germans do next ? What will they have achieved ? Granted, as we, of course, are granting, that they have not yet destroyed the field armies of France by surrenders like that at Sedan or by driving them into pens as at Metz, all they will have accomplished, and at enormous loss of life and material, will be the military occupation of about one-sixth of France. The other five-sixths will be intact. Can any one after two months of war—we are trying to envisage the situation at about the beginning of October, a situation, that is, worse than the present, for at present not one-tenth of France is occupied—regard such a position as desperate ? It would be nothing of the kind, and nobody would dream of considering it so if it were not for the curious accident that Paris is what may be described as a frontier capital.


If the capital were at Limoges or Clermont-Ferrand, or at Bordeaux, which has now become the seat of Government, every one not only in France but here would feel very differently about the situation. Paris in the past has always stood for so much in the minds not only of Frenchmen but of the whole world, that we are all of us inclined to think that Paris is France. As a matter of fact, whatever it may have been in former years, it is not so now. All Frenchmen are proud of Paris, no doubt, but it does not dominate France morally, intellectually, or politically in the way it used to do. No sort of paralysis will fall upon the country owing to the investment, or, if you will, the capture, of Paris. It is absolutely certain that the French people will show not less but even more courage than they showed in 1870, and instead of being depressed as then by not possessing an ally in the world and distracted by internal troubles, they will have their Russian allies in the north and their English allies in the west to comfort and succour them. Remember, too, what influence sea-power will have upon this war.

We have not yet, however, answered our main question as to what the Germans are to do next if they have invested Paris and occupied one-sixth of France. Are they to stand on the defensive, or are they to push on ? If they stand on the defensive, there are plenty of things that the French can do to put them in jeopardy. Suppose the German line of steel from Havre to Pontarlier is too strong to be pierced, though probably it will in places be a very thin line when it has got so far south as that. It may be quite possible to bring, not a mere raiding expedition, but a very large French force, round in transports to the German flank. But such movements will tempt the Germans, or, rather, force them, to push on in order to punish and break up the expeditions preparing for their discomfiture, and this again must involve them in all sorts of fresh troubles. To occupy another sixth of France must take another million men and another six weeks, and where are the Germans to get them from? Even if they do get them, they are again faced with the dilemma of a stand or of a further advance. To put the matter in a nutshell, Paris is not France, and the Germans would have accomplished very little from the military point of view if they were to carry its defences by assault in the first week of investment. What they have got to do is to conquer the whole of France and to destroy the whole of the French armies, and this, we venture to say, they will not accomplish, even if the Russian advance is so slow that Germany is given six months, or even a year, in which to perform the task. What Germany could not do even in 1870 she is not going to do now. Germany’s only hope would be in a sudden quenching of the French spirit, and in a movement in France to force the Govern- ment to make the best terms they could. But a French Government with a Poincare as President, and with such men as Millerand, Delcasse, Briand, and Viviani in the Cabinet, is not going to break down. They will fight the matter out on these lines not only “all winter,” but all spring and all summer, and in the end they will win. Truly for the Germans it may be said :— “Each fatal triumph brings more near the inevitable end.”

They can prolong the war, with untold misery for themselves, for France, and for us, but they cannot win if the French stand firm—and the French will stand firm.

No doubt the Germans can see this as well as we can.

Why, then, do they not despair ? Because they think they will be able to drive us to desert France, or, at any rate, to give them counsels of despair, and because they think they will be able to stir up trouble for us in India and in Egypt. That is nonsense. They will utterly fail to stir up trouble in India, for no Indian is mad enough to wish to change our mild rule for the rule of the German jack- boot. Even if they can induce the Turks to invade Egypt and temporarily wrest it from our hands, they will have accomplished nothing in the way of putting pressure upon us. If necessary, we shall find it perfectly easy to reconcile ourselves to the temporary loss of Egypt. That is a piece which can be picked up when the war is over without any sort of difficulty. If the Egyptian population prove disloyal at first, they will get all the punishment that we can possibly wish for them out of a Turkish occupation. The Turks if they go to Egypt will not have the slightest hesitation in plundering their fellow Mohammedans. No little counter-irritants of this kind will avail for an instant to make us leave hold of the main object, and that is the ultimate beating of the Germans by land and sea. Therefore we would ask our readers to be of good courage however many and dreadful the blows that may fall upon us and the Allies in the course of the next month or six weeks. We and the French have got the wolf by one ear and the Russians have got him by the other, and though he may use his teeth with terrible effect, if we have the hardihood and patience to hold on we shall finish him in the end. And we shall have the hardihood and the patience. We shall “stick it out,” though no doubt it will be for us, as for the rest of the world, a process of great misery—a rending of the heartstrings.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Dean Jackson

    In one of the many senseless campaigns fought on the Western Front, the Cambrai campaign (20 November 1917 – 7 December 1917) witnessed more than 44,000 casualties, including 7,000 servicemen of the United Kingdom and South Africa dying for zero ground claimed. That 44,000 casualty figure should have been used instead for the more critical campaign against the Bolsheviks in Petrograd (who had just mounted the November 7 coup, overthrowing the Provisional government), resulting in the re-entry of Russia into the war, thereby sparing the exhausted Western Front Allies the prospect of facing another thirty German divisions previously deployed against Russia on the Eastern Front. In fact, a 57,000-man Allied military unit was already in Russia (the Ukraine) at the time–the Czechoslovak Legion–and could have been used to overthrow the Bolsheviks if the Allied powers so wished. Instead, the Czechoslovak Legion was sent on a 6,000 mile odyssey across Russia, its destination Vladivostok on the Pacific coast for passage back to Europe and the war, instead of sending the legion 700 miles due north to Petrograd and collapse the Bolshevik coup. The politicians of the West were doing all they could to (1) protect the fledgling Bolshevik regime in Petrograd; while (2) sabotaging every opportunity to immediately get Russia back into the war before the Bolshevik position had strengthened throughout Russia. Only when the position of the Bolsheviks was relatively secure would the Allied powers mount campaigns to supposedly overthrow the Bolsheviks (North Russia Intervention and Siberian Intervention), campaigns that were sure to fail due to the lackluster number of soldiers assigned to both missions (though the Japanese contingent of 70,000 soldiers deployed to the the Siberian Intervention is a minimum number one would expect from the combined American, British and French contingent, whose actual total complement registered an anemic 10,250 soldiers up against 600,000 Bolsheviks) and the remote locations for the soldiers’ landings–Archangel (British, French, Italian and American), Murmansk (British, French, Italian and American) and Vladivostok (American, British, French, Canadian, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese)–far from the Bolshevik’s Command and Control center located in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), where too the Bolshevik’s leadership (Central Committee) is located.

    When Allies did attempt to intervene in Russia they do it (1) too late (now Allied troops would be up against the Red Army, not incompetent Red Guards); and (2) in ports that are remote from the Command and Control Center that is Petrograd!* The Allies land in the remote, out of the way, Archangel or Vladivostok, but won’t land in Petrograd! To ensure that they win the war, the Allies needed to immediately move on Petrograd to quickly get Russia back into the war. In fact, knowing that Lenin had been sent to Russia by the Germans in order to get Russia out of the war, the British would have already drawn up battle plans for a Russian intervention centering on Petrograd.

    It should also be understood that as the Czechoslovak Legion moved north to annihilate the Bolshevik Command & Control centers in Petrograd–a mission a non-Marxist co-opted Allies would have assigned the Czechoslovak Legion on November 8–the ranks of the 57,000 strong unit would have swelled with disaffected officers, non-commissioned offices and enlisted personnel of the former Imperial Russian Army who were furious over the inexplicable dissolution of the Imperial Russian Army. No wonder so many ‘White’ officers had disdain for ‘democracy’, for ‘democracy’ in Russia was a front for Bolshevism.

    The above is a clear case of intentional botching of the Allied war effort in order to assist the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, proving that World War I was a Marxist ‘Scissors Strategy’ operation, the purpose of the operation to lead to the establishment of the first aboveboard Marxist nation that would spread the Marxist germ to China, where the West in 1949 would throw up its arms asking, “Who lost China?” The Marxist West lost China, of course! Then the French lost northern Vietnam thanks to China. Then America intentionally lost the Vietnam War, where (1) over 50% of NVA regiments were 100% manned by Chinese soldiers; and (2) the United States refused to invade and liberate the atheistic Marxist North Vietnam; where (3) the constant replenishing of NVA regiments by Chinese ringers and the refusal of the United States to bring the war to a quick end by invading North Vietnam, led to the loss of the war, resulting in Americans’ loss of faith in their government and institutions.

    The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    For more on this discovery see my blog…


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.


    * During World War II, the German General Staff wanted to concentrate resources on capturing Moscow, since Moscow was then the Command & Control location for Soviet forces. Hitler insisted on dissipating the effort on three fronts. The same sabotage took place during the Marxists’ World War II operation, where after the war the Marxists’ global position was strengthened.

    ** The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

  • trace9

    Uncanny. Who would use the term ‘Fabian’ now, except in the political sense. But is it not something of the Muslim fanatics’ tactic?