Keith Sinclair has labelled New Zealanders the

It may be needed before observing and analysing the New Zealand responses to the two World Wars in detail to stop on one particular notion, patriotism. In case of war, it can lead to very militaristic behaviours, that is to say, immediate reaction to an attack, many means put at the service of the motherland. The more widespread patriotism is, the more the whole society will answer as one body to the state’s call for fighting. Concerning New Zealand, this notion is important since it is a very common feeling among the citizens, adding to this the strong attachment to the Empire and to Britain. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a spontaneous reaction and a long-rooted type of behaviour. These notions being clarified, it is now possible to see to what extent New Zealand’s response to the World Wars was highly militaristic.

The easiest way to see how militaristic a country can be is to look at the government’s behaviour. Indeed its actions have repercussions in other spheres: economic and civil. New Zealand had prepared well for the First World War. The implement of the compulsory military training in 1909 echoed perfectly the third definition of militarism, i.e. the preparedness for war. The training was considered the cornerstone of the military policy: it illustrated “the potential power of the modern New Zealand state”, with 30,000 men trained when war arrived; the mobilization’s ability; and “the intensity of the desire of ‘mainstream’ New Zealand to regularize and control the community’s behaviour”. Conscription, considered the basis for a rationalized organisation, was eventually introduced in 1916, while the government still encouraged volunteers to enrol. State intervention went further in 1939: the state of emergency was declared and it was thus possible to legislate by orders-in-councils, which boils down to short-circuiting the democratic process. A couple of laws in 1915 and 1916 also enabled the control of the media, which could be censored for not supporting militarism. Conscientious objectors were subject to physical punishment and imprisoned in detention camps.

The militaristic behaviour of New Zealand is not only to be found in the state. The citizens themselves were sometimes even more militaristic than their government. This is particularly patent in the study of volunteering. Conscription was introduced very late during the wars, dismissed as long as the flow of volunteers continued. Driven by excitation, patriotic spirit or even by adventure and travel, but also “naïve and conditioned by military training and imperialistic schooling”, New Zealanders came in mass to the recruiting offices. For instance, in May 1939 when the recruiting for the National Military Reserve began, there were 7,000 offerings in the first four days, making a total of 25,444 by 6 September. The overseas force received the same success. During the First World War, the coming-back of the first soldiers did not hamper the recruiting.

The Home Front was also very committed. Social unity was promoted. After 1939, workers and management staff, especially in industries like woollen mills, clothing or boot making, were asked to do more. Rationing was accepted. Many associations affirmed their support to the war, from the New Zealand Bowling Association to the Associated Chambers of Commerce. There was a real exclusion of those who did not volunteer. The associations related to warfare became very active. In 1905, the National Defence League counted already more than 7,000 members. From 1936, the Defence League is recorded as educating public opinion towards increased defence measures. The Home Guard, composed with voluntary units, totalled 123,242 men between 1949 and 1943. The Boy Scout Movement, created before World War One, is also part of this civilian militaristic organisation. Besides, women played a big role: they replaced men who left for the front in the industry, notably during World War Two. They, with children, demonstrated in the streets to push men to volunteer. They were on the Front Line as nurses. The newspapers supported this excitation. They exhorted people to take part in it, and most of them were conscriptionists. Moreover, taking part in war also consisted in giving money: to the state, for the aircraft or for the London children during the Second World War. The National Patriotic Fund collected £1,868,281 in 1944-45.

Another very important area regarding militarism is economy. Therefore, the study of finance and budget during war is very relevant. In World War One loans were raised and the taxes increased. In 1914 the Parliament accorded £2,000,000 to the Minister of Finance. By March 1915 the country’s war expenditure had risen to £300,000 a month. Three months later the Public Revenues Act Amendment Act allowed the government to borrow £10,000,000 for war purposes. A War Expense Department was even established. At the end of 1916 war expenditure reached £21,150,000. During World War Two, defence expenditure rose from £600,000 in 1932, to £3 million in 1938-39.

All these elements gathered conveyed the impression that New Zealand was a great militaristic nation, and indeed the country has now such a reputation. It must be said then that for its size (less than one million inhabitants in 1914), New Zealand gave a massive contribution: for the Great War, 19.53 per cent of the eligible manpower was recruited; among allied countries, only Britain had a greater rate. During the next global conflict New Zealand sent 105,000 men abroad; the casualties on a per capita basis were the highest of any allied countries after Russia.

How “astonishing”, to take Sinclair’s word, was the war effort in New Zealand, it was not much more than it should be facing such wars as the two global conflicts. Several elements show that the responses of the state and of the citizens were rather qualified. First, New Zealand foreign policy is symbolic of the incomplete commitment to warfare. The country tended to rely a lot on diplomacy, instead of trusting the power of military action, notably during World War Two. New Zealand was a fervent member of the League of Nations, and believed, as many other nations thought, that war could be avoided. Newspapers accorded benefice of the doubt to Hitler. It asked until late for an international conference to diminish the tensions in Europe.

Moreover, it cannot be said that in New Zealand military preoccupations ever really had the upper hand in politics. Each time before the wars, domestic policy was the main issue. Indeed in 1914 and 1938 there were elections, and foreign policy was not the most debated subject. Conscription was delayed in the First World War because of the government’s fear of opposition from Labour, this being an occasion for troubles and upheavals. In 1939, the Depression was still present in people’s minds. The Labour government at that time, given its traditional pacifist background, never fell into a highly militaristic mesh. Pacifism started to be widespread during World War Two, although some examples can be found during the Great War, with people like Princess Te Puea Herangi who led the Maori passive resistance against conscription. Some of the meetings of the Peace and Anti-Conscription Council were well attended. Nevertheless, one of the most obvious aspects of the New Zealand response to the wars that contradicts the fact that New Zealanders were highly militaristic is the reason why they fought. Despite all the enthusiasm they had joining the fight, they fought mainly out of solidarity and love for Britain. It was a job that had to be done.

Furthermore, the lack of organisation was sometimes too patent for the comparison with the Prussians to be highly relevant. The evidence is the fast coming shortages in the number of volunteers. By summer 1915, the recruitments had lost in dynamics. The best men had gone and those who remained were more reluctant to leave for a war whose cruelty they had started to hear of. After the National Registration the government discovered that 99 per cent of eligibles chose not to volunteer. The recruiting scheme failed. Likewise, in the Second World War the absence of enthusiasm had a great impact on the number of volunteers. At that time, Territorial Training had not been compulsory, contrary to 1914, and the Army was not popular. The recruiting campaign had to go a step further to convince the New Zealanders. There was no blind militarism: in the end the citizens asked for conscription, considered more democratic. Besides, several cases of amateurism and indiscipline were reported within the New Zealand troops, notably riots and drunkenness, underlying the fact that they were not so well trained.

Sinclair’s opinion about New Zealanders raised reflection among the historians. In his book New Zealanders at War, Michael King is thinking about the notion of “Prussians of the Pacific”. He acknowledges the reputation of the troops as fierce warriors, and the enthusiasm that could be felt after the wars’ outbreaks. Yet he never really seems to consider New Zealanders as highly militaristic. His counterarguments are: there was never a serious extension of the national frontiers, which contradicts the first aspect of the definition of militarism; there were no great victories; and no boasting about victories, which implies that the citizen and government had never been conditioned enough to think only regarding militaristic success. In conclusion, for him, the New Zealanders are not “the Prussians of the Pacific”.

In some aspects, the New Zealand response to the World Wars could justify their nickname of “Prussians of the Pacific”. Indeed both the government, by using what it could control – legislation, propaganda, state finance, even repression – and the civil society – women, children, association, men by volunteering – had a rather militaristic behaviour during the wars, organising their lives around it. Nonetheless, New Zealand pragmatism prevented it from being highly militaristic: diplomacy and domestic policy remained important, so did opposition to war, and organisation was never optimally rationalized.

This conclusion would thus tend to refute Sinclair’s opinion. However, New Zealanders could be the “Prussians of the Pacific” for another reason: it has been said that Gallipoli was a “national ‘baptism of blood’”. Just as the Prussians became Germans on the battlefields of Sadowa in 1866 and against France in 1871, the two World Wars probably created a sense of nationhood in New Zealand.

2169 words

---

Bibliography

• Baker, Paul, King and country call: New Zealanders, conscription and the Great War, Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press, 1988.
• King, Michael, New Zealanders at War, Auckland, N.Z; Exeter, N.H: Heinemann, 1981.
• Taylor, Nancy, The New Zealand people at war: the home front, volume 1 and 2, Wellington, N.Z: Historical Publications Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs: Government Printer, 1986.
• Sinclair, Keith, A destiny apart: New Zealand's search for national identity, Wellington, N.Z.: Allen & Unwin in association with the Port Nicholson Press, 1986.
• Drew, H.T.B Lieutenant, “War effort of New Zealand: a popular history of (a) minor campaigns in which New Zealanders took part, (b) services not fully dealt with in the campaign volumes, (c) the work at the bases”, Official history of New Zealand's effort in the Great War, volume 4, Auckland, N.Z.: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1923.
• Mentiplay, Cedric, A fighting quality: New Zealanders at war, Wellington: Reed, 1979.

---