THE BRITISH AND THEIR ARMY: Replies To Australian Critic

New Zealand Listener, Volume 7, Issue 163, 7 August 1942, Page 6

THE BRITISH AND THEIR ARMY:

Replies To Australian Critic

UR recent review of "Bless "Em All," an Australian writer’s book on the British Army, brought us more letters than we could accommodate on our ordinary correspondence page. We have therefore taken three of the most typical of these letters and made a special feature of them here.

To The Editor. Sir-Your long review of " Boomerang’s" book on the British Army of to-day makes painful reading. No doubt ‘much of what he says is justified. The British Army, like the nation of which it is a part, is in a state of transition. The class organisation of the nation was changing before the war, and the process is being accelerated by the war. The Army is changing with it, but the process is neither easy nor painless. But what I want to say with all possible emphasis is, don’t put all the blame on the Army. The greater part of the blame lies with the nation, which in peacetime has always refused to take soldiering seriously. The British soldier, said Napier of the Army in the Peninsula, fought in the cold shade of an aristocracy. It beat the armies of France that fought under the stimulus of revolutionary fervour. The British Army still fights in that shade, and the British people have been content that it should be so. It has left the officering of the Army to the aristocracy and the upper middle class, and until Mr. Hore-Belisha improved matters, it would not pay officers an adequate wage. In nothing has the British public been more stupid than

its attitude to defence. Fifty odd years ago a young English idealist, Henry Nevinson, who was to give his long life to the service of freedom and unpopular causes, came back from Germany deeply impressed with the effect that military service had on German youth. He wanted England to learn something from Germany in this respect. No London paper would publish his ideas, until ohe did for the express purpose of tearing them to pieces editorially. In subsequent years oceans of nonsense were talked on the subject. Military training was militarism. One volunteer was worth three conscripts. Britons were free men, not slaves, and they claimed the freedom to tefuse to prepare for the defence of

their country. For that reason they actually regarded themselves as superior to Continentals. One M.P. said in the Commons that if England were invaded "a milliori bayonets would flash in the sun," to which it was pertinently retorted "let ’em flash ’em as has ’em." As most regularly in British history -as regularly as trough follows crest at sea-the Army was neglected in peacetime. It may not be generally realised that Kipling’s famous poem expressed literal truth. Publicans did have the damned insolence to refuse to serve men in uniform. But when war came it was "special train for Atkins." Then in 1914 Britain came up against a nation of soldiers. To save herself she had to became the same, Fortunately in the years between the South African war ‘and the First World War, Britain had a great war Minister and a band of enthusiasts to back him, The result was that. the British Army, though small, was very efficient-Von Kluck, who was in the best position to judge, said it was the finest army in history-and it not only helped to stem the German onrush, but formed a nucleus on which a national army could be built. Haldane had his reward; he was hounded out of public life. In the years before 1939, says "Boomerang," Britain neglected her youth. She did. But what would have been the response if Governments had tried to train that youth? Didn’t Stanley ‘Baldwin confess that he could have told the nation the truth about Defence, but didn’t because it would have cost him an election? Very reprehensible of Stanley, but he knew his electorate. When, ‘shortly before this war, Britain reintroBaced conscription because she had made commitments on the Continent, ‘there was strong opposition. No, Britain has got a better army than she deserves. As to the defeats in this war, they have been bad and depressing enough, ‘but let us be fair. How could Dunkirk | possibly have been avoided? Twenty ‘times the tank and aeroplane strength wouldn’t have saved the British Army from retreat to the beaches, nor would any strategy or tactics, The Belgians on the left had surrendered; the French on ‘the right were collapsing. Surely only an atfmy very well trained and handled could have reached the beaches at all. And the Army has had its successes. Quite properly " Boomerang" praises the Navy. But the Navy’s success has been won partly at the expense of the Italians. ‘What about the Army’s exploits against ‘the Italians? What about the East African campaigns, in which a great ard very difficult territory was conquered by a force that was only a fraction of the enemy’s in numbers? Considering that when Italy came into the war Britain had only a corporal’s guard in Egypt, posterity may say that we were a bit fortunate to be as far from Alexandria as seventy miles in July, 1942. And an Army which after a long and gruelling retreat like that of the last few weeks, : (Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page) can hit back hard enough at the end of it to take 6,000 prisoners in ten days, is not a bad army.

A.

M.

(Wellington).

Sir,-Your review of "Bless "Em All’ by "Boomerang" in The Listener of July 17 was very interesting and the illustra. tions delightful. As your reviewer remarks, however, the writer deliberately exaggerates. He reduces problems to e humorous absurdity which is supposed to make the reader think. However, there are some people who don’t think-they merely absorb other people’s views especially views which are amusingly expressed. Then they may become dangerous propaganda. There are two sections of the review which I should like to discuss. These are the sections on the related problems of morale and training methods-headed "Wrong End of the Stick" and "As Simple as a Baby’s". I wonder what a member of the N.Z. Division overseas would think on reading the summing up of morale. He’d hope that the reading public would use their common sense in accepting "Boomerang’s" conclusions. Surely the Army has been trained to endure hardship and face difficulty just as the Navy and Air Force have. The answer is that the New Zealand Division has already faced three gruelling campaigns and is engaged in another. Then there’s the example "Boomerang" has given of the Blimpish colonel who exhorted his men to do their gundrill properly "or I will make you double round the square holding the rifle above your head." It looks as if "Boomerang" may have misunderstood. Everyone makes jokes about Scotsmen, and many of the best jokes are deliberately perpetrated by Scotsmen against themselves. Isn’t it rather the same in the Army? No one would think of taking such’ a threat very seriously. Even Blimpish colonels know that there’s a serious reason for training men in defence and attack. One doesn’t hear much about "Blimps" from the men overseas. There is in the

New Zealand Division a body of young, | keen men who take their responsibilities seriously and intelligently. I feel that the public should realise that the passages referred to are not meant to represent the whole truth. My brother is serving overseas as a major. He began in the Territorials under the volunteer system, and he is only one of many Who took a lively interest in affairs of national concern throughout the years when the Army was considered almost an excrescence. Here I quote from some of his recent letters written while the N.Z. Division was in Syria. These are the unsolicited views of 4 man on the spot. "Two or three times a week I have to lecture the troops on current affairs. Yesterday I gave one on.the French Navy and Mediterranean strategy. To-morrow I’m giving one on the Rulers of Japan. A miscellaneous selection of reading in the past is proving useful now, and the Army puts a great deal of emphasis on this. On Friday I ave the men a lecture, this time on British hipping and Vital Sea-Routes, a subject I had my heart in. The men are interested and ask intelligent questions. Now and again we arrange for volunteers to give lectures. One of the drivers gave a most interesting talk on machine-tools, sawmilling and the timber industry, and a bombardier gave us a lecture on American industry, so controver1 ia I am now going to start a debating club. *"T went out with one troop on a route march and map-reading expedition. Within limits I have practically a free hand in making up the week’s training directive, and these expeditions are very popular. We have walking and hill climbing, map-reading and rig se work, which are the instructional side of the outing, but it is mostly picnic. I am uite sure that it is a better way of getting e men fit than a dreary march along a road, and they thoroughly enjoy it. Next week they are going to practise a’ and ‘infiltration’, also such pleasures as a night

HELEN

BROTHERTON

(Wellington).

Sir,-I came across this passage the other day, and it may be worth recalling: And why was ali this striving against insurmountable difficulties? Why were men sent thus to slaughter, when the application of a just science would have rendered the operation comparatively easy? Because the English Ministers, so ready to plunge into war, were quite ignorant of its exigences; because the English people are warlike without being military, and under pretence of maintaining a liberty which they do not possess, oppose in peace all useful martial establishments. Expatiating in their schools and colleges upon Roman discipline and Roman valour, they are heedless of Roman institutions; they desire, like that ancient republic, to be free at home and conquerors abroad, but start at perfecting their military system, as a thing incompatible with a constitution, which they yet suffer to be violated by every Minister who trembles at the exposure of corruption. In the beginning of each war, England has to seek in blood for the knowledge necessary to ensure success, and like the fiend’s towards Eden, her conquering course is through chaos followed by death. This was written over a hundred years ago by Sir William Napier, the historian of the Peninsula War, in which he served. I don’t suggest it applies in every respect to-day, but it does explain a good deal in the history of the British Army.

STUDENT

(Wellington).