[32] For details, see Hanotaux, “La Bataille de la Trouée de Charmes,” Rev. des Deux Mondes, November 15, 1916; Engerand, loc. cit.; a vindication of General Dubail, by “Cdt. G. V.”: “La 1re Armée et la Bataille de la Trouée de Charmes,” La Revue, January 1, 1917; Barrés: “Comment la Lorraine fut Sauvée,” Echo de Paris, September 1917.
[33] See p. 34. The mismanagement of this battle was the subject of evidence at the Metallurgical Commission of Inquiry on May 15, 1919.
[34] Miles, Le General Maunoury, Pages Actuelles, No. 49.
[35] French, 1914, ch. iv. The Hon. J. W. Fortescue (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1919), defending Smith-Dorrien, charges Lord French with “clumsy and ludicrous misstatements,” and questions the figures in the text.
[36] Meine Bericht zur Marneschlacht (Berlin: Scherl), notes, written in December 1914, on the operations of the II Army to the end of the battle of the Aisne. Bülow charges Kluck with not having informed German G.H.Q. of the gathering of Maunoury’s forces and the action of Proyart.
For the battle of Guise, see Hanotaux, “La Bataille de Guise–St. Quentin,” Rev. des Deux Mondes, September 1, 1918.
[37] For his report of a stormy interview with Lord Kitchener at the Embassy in Paris on September 1, see 1914, ch. v. This account has, however, been strongly questioned by Mr. Asquith (speech at Newcastle, May 16, 1919), who says that Lord Kitchener did but convey the conclusions of the Cabinet, which had been “seriously disquieted” by Sir John French’s communications.
[38] See Foch, by Réné Puaux, and, above all, Foch’s own works, De la Conduite de la Guerre (3rd ed., 1915), Les Principes de la Guerre, 4th ed., 1917 (Paris: Berger-Levrault).
[39] “I see no inconvenience,” Joffre replied, “in your turning back to-morrow, 28th, in order to affirm your success, and to show that the retreat is purely strategic; but on the 29th every one must be in retreat.”