<P> On 7 May 1918, a senior army officer on active duty, Major - General Sir Frederick Maurice, prompted a second crisis when he went public with allegations that Lloyd George had lied to Parliament on military matters . Asquith, the Liberal leader in the House, took up the allegations and attacked Lloyd George (also a Liberal). While Asquith's presentation was poor, Lloyd George vigorously defended his position, treating the debate as a vote of confidence . He won over the House with a powerful refutation of Maurice's allegations . The main results were to strengthen Lloyd George, weaken Asquith, end public criticism of overall strategy, and strengthen civilian control of the military . Meanwhile, the German offensive stalled and was ultimately reversed . Victory came on 11 November 1918 . </P> <P> Historian George H. Cassar has evaluated Lloyd George's legacy as a war leader: </P> <Dl> <Dd> After all that has been said and done, what are we to make of Lloyd George's legacy as a war leader? On the home front he achieved varied results in tackling difficult, and in some instances, unprecedented problems . It would be hard to have improved on his dealings with labour and the program to increase homegrown food, but in the sectors of manpower, price control and food distribution he adopted the same approach as his predecessor, taking action only in response to the changing nature of the conflict . In the vital area of national morale, while he did not have the technical advantages of Churchill, his personal conduct damaged his ability to do more to inspire the nation . All things considered, it is unlikely that any of his political contemporaries could have handled matters at home as effectively as he did, although it can be argued that if someone else had been in charge, the difference would not have been sufficient to change the final outcome . In his conduct of the war he did advance the cause of the Entente significantly in some ways, but in determining strategy, one of the most important tasks for which a prime minister must be responsible, he was undeniably a failure . To sum up, while Lord George's contributions outweighed his mistakes, the margin is too narrow, in my opinion, to include him In the pantheon of Britain's outstanding war leaders . </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> After all that has been said and done, what are we to make of Lloyd George's legacy as a war leader? On the home front he achieved varied results in tackling difficult, and in some instances, unprecedented problems . It would be hard to have improved on his dealings with labour and the program to increase homegrown food, but in the sectors of manpower, price control and food distribution he adopted the same approach as his predecessor, taking action only in response to the changing nature of the conflict . In the vital area of national morale, while he did not have the technical advantages of Churchill, his personal conduct damaged his ability to do more to inspire the nation . All things considered, it is unlikely that any of his political contemporaries could have handled matters at home as effectively as he did, although it can be argued that if someone else had been in charge, the difference would not have been sufficient to change the final outcome . In his conduct of the war he did advance the cause of the Entente significantly in some ways, but in determining strategy, one of the most important tasks for which a prime minister must be responsible, he was undeniably a failure . To sum up, while Lord George's contributions outweighed his mistakes, the margin is too narrow, in my opinion, to include him In the pantheon of Britain's outstanding war leaders . </Dd>

At the beginning of world war i great britain