NZ in WWI

January 10th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Daily Telegraph reports:

 Ministers have been accused of “social engineering” over their plans to mark the centenary of the First World War, by downplaying the role of Australian and New Zealand soldiers in favour of the contribution from New Commonwealth nations. …

The latest row follows a briefing to Australian journalists by Whitehall officials that no events were being planned to mark their country’s contribution and that internal discussions on the plans do not mention Australia or New Zealand. The briefing disclosed, instead, that officials were concentrating on promoting the role played by so-called New Commonwealth countries, those which achieved independence since 1945.

The countries singled out for promotion were India, Bangladesh and Nigeria, along with other west African nations. The reports state that this is to promote “community cohesion” in the UK.

The government source said: “There has been no mention of old Commonwealth Allies like Australia or New Zealand but more interest in celebrating the role from New Commonwealth countries. I think it’s fair to say Commonwealth ties are being frayed a little on this one.”

How sad.

Off memory New Zealand had the highest ratio of soliders killed per capita among the Commonwealth nations. You’d think that would merit being singled out.

Tags:

104 Responses to “NZ in WWI”

  1. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    It just shows how Orwellian things are getting in the UK – a nation with a proud history now subordinating it to the needs of the modern political society.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Don the Kiwi (1,686 comments) says:

    Mmm…………

    My maternal grandfather Don Piper, his brother-in-law – my great uncle – Eustace Nicholson, and my father’s oldest brother, George Beckett would be pretty pissed off.

    Still – what do you expect from a bunch of poms – UK has gone down the crapper. If they were still alive, I think they would be disappointed that their gallantry and self sacrifice appears to have been in vain.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yogibear (361 comments) says:

    It seems Whitehall’s attitude to NZ and Australia hasn’t changed since 1915

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sequel (13 comments) says:

    To add a bit of perspective here, NZ and Australia have all but cut the UK (and India and France too) out of the Gallipoli/Dardanelles commemoration next year.

    Not saying it’s right for either country to be doing this, but there’s enough blame in this to go all around. Hopefully a bit of public indignation in all countries will see a more balanced approach.

    Dickon M

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “New Zealand had the highest ratio of soliders killed per capita among the Commonwealth nations.”

    Excluding Great Britain?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “A nation with a proud history now subordinating it to the needs of the modern political society.”

    Everyone can bemoan the UK going “down the crapper” but reality is we are just a few years behind…
    Anyone think a Labour/Mana/Greens Govt is going to honour our War dead?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    PC gone mad. NZers willingly went and gave their lives in a war that was a very long way away. The Brits want to appease the guilt that they have towards countries like India. Silly officials.

    It’s sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    “The countries singled out for promotion were India, Bangladesh and Nigeria, along with other west African nations”.

    In 1914, India included Bangladesh and Pakistan, Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. Maybe Pakistan has been singled out for exclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    Our population then was just over a million.

    NZ dead 18,052, which was 1.64% of the population, wounded 41,317.
    About one in ten of the male population killed or wounded.

    UK dead 886,939, which was 2.19% of the population, wounded 1,663,435.
    One of he wounded was one of my grandfathers, he later emigrated to New Zealand (1930).

    Australia 1.38%, Canada 0.92%, India 0.02%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. sbk (312 comments) says:

    Lest we forget…it seems they have..,mind you,in similar vain is Obama’s contempt for US Vets…a trend?

    fucking arseholes…can only speak/live freely because…and what once was fought/die for,is now to dispensed with to satisfy the whims of a out of touch political elite,cravenly surendering to a small but very vocal group…appeasement is the action of the cowardly.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,838 comments) says:

    Longknives, not sure about the Central Powers, but on the allied side wikipedia (FWIW) gives casualty rates that include civilians (direct and indirect), and amongst the commonwealth the UK is the highest at 2.19%, NZ next at 1.64%. On the allied side that is rather dwarfed by France at 4.29%, Greece and Italy at around 3.5%, Romania at 9.33% and Serbia at 16.1%. Note that in all these later ones the number of civilian deaths often exceeds the military casualties, except for France.

    On the Central Powers side, German losses were calculated at 3.82% (20% of that civilians), Austro-Hunagry at 3%, Bulgaria at 3.4%, and Turkey at 13.7% (over 70% civilians).

    So although NZ sustained heavy casualties, they were lighter than many others.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Sequel (13 comments) says:

    SPC – In 1914 India comprised all of present day India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangledesh and Burma. The India Office/Govt of India was also responsible for defending Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong. I don’t have access to my books here, but I also think they stationed troops from India in Kuwait too. Certainly the first half of the Mesoptamian campaign (up until the fall of Kut/Mespotamia Inquiry) was administered by the Govt of India, as was the campaign in South West Africa (until this was given to Smuts/Botha in 1916/17). Not sure who had overall command of the British contingent that took part in the conquest of Kiachow/Tsingtao in China.

    India did make a massive contribution to the overall Imperial war effort in WWI (especially in the Middle East, but also in the early days of the war in Europe), but this should be seen in the context of the overall effort – GB, Canada, Australia, NZ, Sth Africa, India, not to mention the many Askaris (native African soldiers) and the tens of thousands of African porters who participated in the campaigns against German colonies in Africa. To single out one or two countries at the expense of others is to deny history.

    Dickon M

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. scrubone (3,091 comments) says:

    I believe it’s the % of people actually in the armed forces, since the UK provided the logistics all our boys were sent to the front.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    The reality is that the Old Commonwealth is just not fashionable, being (with the exception of South Africa) too thoroughly colonised. It is sad that the bonds between we English-speaking peoples are unappreciated. Really, though, why would you expect people who have great amounts of contempt for the past to reverence it?

    And as others have pointed out, this cuts both ways. How many Aussies and Kiwis bag the Poms over Gallipolli when some 65% of the casualties came from the United Kingdom.

    People who constantly harp on about how our relationship with Britain is an historical curiosity can’t then turn around and whine when we feel she doesn’t give us enough attention. It’s like when the UK considered stripping our visa-free visit status and ancestral passport rights and all these people who had downplayed our Britishness at every turn (we’re a “Pacific Rainbow” etc) got so upset about it.

    If we treat Britain like it is just another country on the UN Roll Call between Albania and Zimbabwe why shouldn’t it return the favour?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (8,188 comments) says:

    This is what happens when “multiculturalism” is embraced as one of the leading policies of the day.

    I note that here too our politicians place great store in same.

    Where England goes…..

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Sequel, the decision to use the resources (for ruling India) of the colonial government for the war effort involved Indians to the extent that they were employed by that government.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Cato, who are the people who claim our relationship to the UK is a historical curiousity? Do you mean people who don’t think we should retain their monarchy as our monarchy?

    And who is the we who treats the UK as just another country in the UN – the only we that applies is the New Zealand government, and how is what you claim demonstrated by actions of our government?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    It’s a bit sad, but then for we (their grandchildren) to be whining about it doesn’t really seem in the right spirit either.

    If certain elements in the English Govt are not that interested in recognizing the role of New Zealand and Australian servicemen, then what good is recognition by those people anyway?

    Hopefully we New Zealanders still remember what our Grandfathers fought for.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    One could note some historical precedent – the Normans and Plantagenets and Tudors/Stuarts used the Arthurian legends to connect themselves to ancient Britain – as rulers in succession to the Anglo-Saxon conquest of that island.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Graeme Edgeler (3,282 comments) says:

    Hopefully we New Zealanders still remember what our Grandfathers fought for.

    Which was what, in World War One?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fentex (922 comments) says:

    I never met my paternal grandfather because of his early death due in part to shrapnel and gas injuries he sustained at Ypres, and I have visited the graves of relatives buried at Gallipoli, yet this sort of thing does not annoy me.

    My first ancestor to come to New Zealand was veteran of the Napoleonic Wars and he emigrated to escape the internecine European hobby of killing one another over trivial issues.

    New Zealand’s future is not bound to Britain’s and celebrations designed to knit community need not be similar in both places.

    It isn’t hard to learn the history if one chooses, no formal public celebration of it needs to be consistent for ever as celebrations are performed to celebrate current ambitions, not past facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Psycho Milt (2,406 comments) says:

    Which was what, in World War One?

    Adventure, excitement, the chance to travel – the usual pre-WW1 stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    PC multiculturalism strikes again.

    Our Kiwi grandfathers and fathers in both World Wars still regarded themselves as British, and NZ paid for the battle cruiser New Zealand which served in the Royal Navy.

    Still, we are forging ahead with multiculturalism ourselves, and our PC multiculturalists are watering our kinship, cultural, and historical ties with UK.

    The British fawning on the “new Commonwealth” in WW1 commemoration is a small slight to us compared with ours to America when we laid out the welcome mat for Red Chinese warships. This while in our anti-nuclear hysteria we still discriminate against the United States Navy, which saved us in World War 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    Is it time to cut the final symbolic ties with the UK?

    If they cut us loose on this (yet again) then maybe we should cut them loose once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Jack5, thanks for clarifying the concept of loyality to being a monocultural nation.

    Meanwhile in the UK the Crown is no longer the defender of the faith (that of the C of E of which it is head) but the defender of faith. This despite the fact that the UK is now a secular society with a minority of Catholics (more church goers than the C of E), Anglicans and Moslems and Hindus. This is why they have their hate speech legislation limiting free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Fentex (922 comments) says:

    Our Kiwi grandfathers and fathers in both World Wars still regarded themselves as British

    Speak for your own, mine did not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,796 comments) says:

    “Is it time to cut the final symbolic ties with the UK?

    If they cut us loose on this (yet again) then maybe we should cut them loose once and for all.”

    thats what you wanted before this came up right?

    so you just throw out an innocent little “well maybe we should.. ” like its the first time youve thought of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. flipper (3,950 comments) says:

    I read the Telegraph report this morning and promptly sent the following email:

    From: … (Flipper)
    Sent: Friday, 10 January 2014 11:09 a.m.
    To: m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz; xxxx; john.key@parliament.govt.nz; j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz;
    Subject: Scandalous UK behaviour
    Importance: High

    The fact that this is based on a briefing given by UK bureaucrats, and has been publicised by The Telegraph, means that there is more fire than smoke.

    May we hope for a very blunt New Zealand and Australian response?
    Or are we going to get William, Kate and George as a consolation thank you???
    And is Cameron becoming a latter day Heath?

    My late Father, who as a boy soldier fought, but fortunately survived Gallipoli, had a very colourful but apt description for silly UK generals, and their politicians. But that will keep for another day.

    READ…
    Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10561430/Government-accused-of-social-engineering-over-WW1-plans.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC, that is incorrect. The full title of Elizabeth II is ” “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.

    HRH the Prince of Wales has expressed an interest in amending that last title to “Defender of Faith” – but that is a personal view and not one that will necessarily be brought into law. It is a title conferred on the Soveriegn by Parliament, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Pete George posts at 4.09:

    Is it time to cut the final symbolic ties with the UK?

    Like, scrap the Parliamentary system, stop UK legal precedent having any relevance in NZ, get rid of the English language, make Maori the everyday language, scrap the “Victoria Cross for NZ”. Or are you just saying covertly, become a republic, as if we weren’t already a de facto one now (without Helun Clark or Farmer Bolger as president).

    We’ve scrapped our main defence ally, the United States, are on our way to being shut out of Australia, so what would be left. Oh that’s right Pete, close ties with Tonga and Fiji and Western (but not American) Samoa, and of course, the great new power, Red China.

    Stick with United Future, Pete, so I can vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    dime, equally this is not about us and some lack of loyalty to kinship with them on our part – this is the UK making a decision about how 1914 commemoration best serves their 2014 society.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “Which was what, in World War One?”

    The independence of small countries (Belgium) against the aggression of larger ones (Germany). As a small country, collective defence is something we ought to appreciate.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Yogibear (361 comments) says:

    This reminds me of the media storm when Tony Blair’s chief Spin Weasel Alistair Campbell (he of the “Oi could have been killed” Brian O’Driscoll PR disaster during the Lions Tour) berated a former NZ Prime Minister on the the steps of Number 10 saying NZ had never done anything to help Britain.

    As is always the case – wiser heads will eventually prevail.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sequel (13 comments) says:

    SPS at 3:43 pm – not sure what your comment refers to. Can you elaborate please?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Cato, yeah sure it is incorrect in terms of current law (but current law applies as it was at the coronation back in the 50’s) – but the UK is being governed as Charles suggests it should be as if he is party to knowledge of that development and supports it. Thus it is inevitable that the term shall change with the succession or soon afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC:

    “Meanwhile in the UK the Crown is no longer the defender of the faith (that of the C of E of which it is head) but the defender of faith.”

    Incorrect as a matter of law.

    “This despite the fact that the UK is now a secular society…”

    Also incorrect as a matter of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    flipper, “Or are we going to get William, Kate and George as a consolation thank you???” – this seems to be to the point of our commemorating the historical connection by continuing to share their monarchy in the 21st C.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    The kiwi soldiers were proud and held the British officers in particular in some contempt because the ‘class’ system was evident, there was little love lost and wouldn’t be now because the ‘lads’ mucked in and got on with officers and soldiers alike. RRM is possibly right they wouldn’t appreciate anyone whining about this, least of all them or us and would probably have the feelings of some of them endorsed that the ‘poms’ were up themselves. That’s not to forget many of the kiwis were only a generation or two from the ‘old’ country themselves, and some born there and in Aussie. Searching the history of our ‘tunnelers’ and their attitude to authority is interesting and a good few of them were brits. All said and done the kiwis, with their mix of nationalities, got on with it and none of us need any approval to salute them, and all the others that served, for that.

    It shouldn’t be forgotten either that NZ has always been tardy in recognising the Pacific Islanders who were trained here and served struggling with the climate changes and food in the battle fields, but were there none the less. Similarly, our own Pioneer Battalion that at the outset were considered ‘not fit’ to fight alongside ‘whites’ until the casualty rate demanded it.

    I don’t agree with the argument that the kiwis saw themselves as ‘British.’ They may have to some extent before the war but after they were clearly New Zealanders, and quietly proud of it. Though it may only be in the last few decades that ‘independence’ has been truly ingrained.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Cato, the law as it stands is ignored by the UK government in practice and this has royal assent, the existing monarch who swore an oath cannot admit this but her son has.

    In the other hand – you think that a society that declares it is not observant is not secular because its monarch is head of a state church. That the old regime of the state status determines the identity of the modern society of the people under that regime – are you for real?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. duggledog (1,505 comments) says:

    They’re pissed because our economy is better than theirs and they are swamped with (what my grandfather would have called) wogs and dagoes. Who will never be going anywhere. Oh and Eastern Europeans. And travellers

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4.35 post) ignores the fact that a large number of the NZ troops in World War 1 were UK-born. Far, far more of the troops were UK born than were Cook Islanders and Nieueans, The Pacific Islanders comprised about 0.1 per cent of the NZ force. (NZ invaded Western Samoa to take if from Germany, so I doubt there would have been Samoans in the NZ Army).

    As for Maori, who served mainly in the Pioneer Battalion, there was concern at the time that Maori were on the way to extinction. They were not conscripted as non-Maori were, and pioneers probably had a lower casualty rate than infantry. Pioneers did lighter and less dangerous forms of engineering than the sappers, whose tasks also included mine clearing. Each of the NZ (Maori) Pioneer Battalion’s four companies comprised two platoons of Maori and two platoons of European NZ’ers.

    (Similarly in the Second World War, in the “Furlough Rebellion” when thousands of early-war veterans were brought home on leave and many if not most refused to return, Maori were exempted from returning).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sequel (13 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – what you say (NZ soldiers disliked British officers because of the class system, as well as NZ soldiers not considering themselves as British) is the accepted story, but wasn’t borne out by own research on the NZ Mounted Rifles Bde in Sinai and Palestine. Interestingly, this so-called ‘egalitarian’ myth of the NZ and Australian soldier is replicated in Canada, South Africa, the USA and, most surprisingly, the British Territorial and New Armies. Indeed, seemingly every division/brigade/battalion of whatever national army described themselves as egalitarian.

    The NZ soldiers who fought there (and around 7,000 passed through the brigade from 1916 to 1919) considered themselves just as British as soldiers from the UK. This was an Imperial army made up of soldiers from all parts of the Empire (the West Indies, NZ, Australia, Indian Army, UK, Sth Africa, even a few black Africans) – both white, coloured, black and Indian. A common citizenship permeated through the army and while there was much one upmanship and competition among the soldiers, you would find the same one-upmanship among the UK units as to whether the Scots or the Welsh, or the Yorkshiremen or the Kentish men were the best.

    Too much has certainly been made by the NZ nation building myth of WWI. It may have contributed to a greater concept of NZ identity, but this identity was firmly located within the British Empire and a common and shared Imperial conciousness.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Sequel (13 comments) says:

    Jack5 – the main force of Pacific Islanders were Rarotongans from the Cook Islands who were trained at Narrow Neck. From memory they only comprised a few hundred men. These are not to be confused with white planters from Fiji who also volunteered to serve in NZ, Australian and British army units.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Fentex hotly disputes at 4.15 that his antecedents who were soldiers regarded themselves as British.

    They were on the British side, though, weren’t they Fentex? Or were they French, or Russian? I presume you wouldn’t be so hot about the issue if they were fighting for Germany or Austria?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    England has an established Church – the Church of England. Members of Parliament include Church of England Bishops who hold their seat by virtue of their religious office. The Sovereign appoints the Bishops of the Church on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.The British Monarch is its head and its clergy swear an oath of allegience to him or her. Its General Synod functions under authority of Parliament.

    Stop trying the weasel out of it with sophistry. You were wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kimbo (905 comments) says:

    @ Ed Snack
    January 10th, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    “On the Central Powers side, German losses were calculated at 3.82% (20% of that civilians), Austro-Hunagry at 3%, Bulgaria at 3.4%, and Turkey at 13.7% (over 70% civilians)”.

    Yes, the Turkish figure is boosted by their government’s genocide against their own Armenian citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    All New Zealand citizens were British subjects until 1974.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Steve (North Shore) (4,544 comments) says:

    Maybe we need another War, so that the multicultural New Zealanders can defend New Zealand?
    Nope, it would be the wimpy peaceniks all over again

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Fentex also posted at 3.57:

    My first ancestor to come to New Zealand was veteran of the Napoleonic Wars and he emigrated to escape the internecine European hobby of killing one another over trivial issues.

    I think you’re idealising you ancestor, Fentex. If he was a pacifist he would have been unlikely to have come to NZ for peace, when NZ was embroiled in decades-long settler-Maori wars. Oral, hand-me-down records of reasons for migration tend to be a bit flaky.

    Most of our European ancestors came for a chance to farm their own land, to escape poverty at home, as seamen who like the spot and jumped ship, as freed convicts from Australia, as missionary types, as participants in Wakefield-type settlement schemes, as shamed remittance men, as adventurers, as gold seekers or other types of fortune hunters, or as just wanderers. I’ve never before heard of anyone moving to 19th century NZ as a pacifist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Cato, having a state church does not mean that the society is not secular. Your claim is silly legalism, people are not creatures of the state.

    As to what I wrote

    Meanwhile in the UK the Crown is no longer the defender of the faith (that of the C of E of which it is head) but the defender of faith.

    Whatever oath was taken in the 1950’s, the Crown signs into legislation what the secular government of the day wants – and that is to defend the rights of the people of a multi-cultural society by being a defender of faith. Charles public statements are an acknowledgment of the changed reality.

    If you argue otherwise, just what has the Crown and her government done to defend the faith of the C of E? Today fewer people attend C of E churches than Catholic ones and offense to Moslems is now a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    Having just spent some lesiure time reading the histroy around the Crimean War and about the major battles of ww1 in France and Belguim there are simple conclusions drawn as to the worth of Kiwi’s participating at all.
    Essentailly these wars have all been about the East meets West and the major participants France, England, Germany,Turkey and Russia spent the years from early 1800’s till 1945 breaking and making new alliances to control the power bases of the various religions of each.

    Given that none really suceeded in gaining absolute control and that peace at anytime was a spear or bullet away from collapsing it was totally futille.
    The poms favoured the turks, didn’t trust the French and were afraid of the Russians.

    Now it has come to pass that the Poms are really Muslimites in drag and thus the East is gaining assendecy over the Anglicans in their own country.
    It follows that the East will continue to travel to our shores.

    Its no longer a Continental issue but is encroaching on the ethnic/religious nature of every country.

    Evil will prevail.

    Interesting book to read if you can get it.

    CRIMEA by Orlando Figes.
    The crimea was the defining conflict of the 19th century, killing at least 800,000 men.
    It was the first conflict to use photography, newspapers. telegraph

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Jack5:

    ‘A change of heart: Gallipoli
    Mounting casualties and the need for reinforcements on the Gallipoli Peninsula forced a change in imperial policy on ‘native peoples’ fighting. The Native Contingent landed at Anzac Cove on 3 July 1915. Here they joined the New Zealand Mounted Rifles, who were being deployed as infantry on the peninsula.

    Some Maori had been at Gallipoli from the beginning, having enlisted in the provincial infantry battalions. One such man was Second Lieutenant Thomas (Hami) Grace of the Wellington Battalion.

    An old boy of Wellington College, Grace was a talented sportsman. He played rugby for the New Zealand Māori teams that toured New Zealand in 1911 and Australia in 1914. A noted marksman, he was an effective sniper at Gallipoli. He was killed on 8 August as the Wellington Battalion seized the crucial heights of Chunuk Bair.

    During the assault on Chunuk Bair in early August, 17 men of the Native Contingent were killed and 89 were wounded. The contingent was involved in the assault on Hill 60 in late August, and by September, only 60 of the 16 officers and 461 other ranks who had arrived in July remained at Gallipoli. The return of sick and wounded members boosted numbers, but when the contingent was evacuated from the peninsula with the rest of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in December 1915, it had only two officers and 132 men. During the campaign 50 Maori had lost their lives.

    Te Rangi Hiroa recorded in his diary that the gallantry of Māori at Gallipoli had ‘earned them the respect and admiration of the British troops’. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, and nine other members of the contingent received military awards.’

    2227 Maori and 458 PIs served. I don’t know if that includes those that served in other battalions. There was dissent right from the beginning with Maori unwilling to accept they would not fight, but as recorded earlier – casualties changed that although the Brits got their way again in Europe with Maori returning to sapper duties. Twenty years later as the Maori Battalion no one stood in their way. The ‘concerns’ were racist and verbalised as fear that they might turn their rifles on the allies, just shows the distortions still alive from the Brits defeat at Gate Pa and else despite their cannons and musketry. The numbers of those that served were not modest compared to the population base.

    As for the compilation of the nationalities of the kiwis it’s all recorded at the Cenotaph on line, with, as I said earlier a good amount from Aussie and Britain. But stick with your own version.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. MH (703 comments) says:

    And don’t forget the irony of it all- the serb who started it Gavrilo Princip was too young to receive the death penalty and almost survived the war,dying of TB in jail 28th April 1918. Don’t forget also the almost 2-10,000 coolies(?) from China-mainly porters part of the supply chain near the front-dying of indirect shelling and the flu at the end of the war,nor the Nips whose navy escorted our troops overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kowtow (8,188 comments) says:

    V2

    New Zealand was always a part of the Great game.NZ was Empire.That’s why we participated ,it wasn’t long ago that England was “Home”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kimbo (905 comments) says:

    SPC vs Cato

    Might I suggest “nonsectarian”, rather than “secular”, and you may find common ground?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. kowtow (8,188 comments) says:

    Jack5

    A lot were also Imperial soldiers who took their discharges here and stayed.

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/29/soldiers-guard-maori-prisoners-1867

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    The Crimean war and the batlle of Sevastepol bought many changes to battles and war. Started with muskets and round shot that would injure soldiers but did not cause major damage. These were replaced with the long ammunition that we know which proceeded to go through the solders and smash bones on the way. They were also more accurate so caused a lot more casualties.

    It is the first war that soldiers were recognised for bravery. Previously the officers were always give the medals etc. With the creation of the Vistoria Cross by Victoria these medals were awarded to ordinary soldiers.
    Most beleive that the VC was cast from Russian cannons captured at Sevastoplol but it has now been shown the metal come from captured antique Chinese Canons that were use at the fort in Sevastopol.

    The Crimean wars was notable for the failure of the Brits to have supply lines and soldiers were sent without winter clothing,inadequte equipment and more died from Cholera and frostbite than from the conflict itself.

    The above book is really interesting read.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Sequel 4.53

    I can accept that, if not totally then to a good degree taking into account that the Kiwis and Canadians etc were on the Brit’s side and many were remittance men, or sons of and so on. But I stand by the fact that they saw themselves distinguished as New Zealanders by war’s end.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    In my 5.09 post I said ” I’ve never before heard of anyone moving to 19th century NZ as a pacifist.”

    Whoops, a memory slip. A number of Prussians who were Baptists and other fundamentalist Christians, migrated to NZ in the late 19th century from around the time Germany was being formed. They wanted to avoid the long conscription into the Prussian Army (or Prussian divisions of the new German Army).

    Out of the frying pan, and into the fire. The poor buggers were soon in the maelstrom of intense NZ persecution of the then many German settler families during World War 1.

    Re Nostalgia-NZ’s 5.27: it was the NZ Army and the NZ Government – not the British – that put Maori into the Pioneer Battalion with the object of minimising casualties.

    Re NZ’ers regarding themselves as British: see Sequel’s post at 4.53. And if WW1 did anything to loosen ties with the UK, it also strengthened ties with Australia through ANZAC.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. MH (703 comments) says:

    Nor should we forget there was widespread Maori opposition to the war, esp by the tribes whose land had been confiscated Tainui,Waikato and the Maori contingent was always short of volunteers. A rebelllion broke out when conscription was made to include maori in 1917=brought in for Euros in 1916. I believe to this day maori have the option whether they choose to fight overseas or not. They can be conscripted and made to serve in NZ but not forced to go over the top.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Kimbo, somewhat but not entirely.

    If it was seen as sectarian, as a government of the faith of the Crown, it has been very unsuccessful. The Catholic Church gatherings now more numerous than in the C of E and the immigration of Moslems meaning there is a future where those in mosques will also be more numerous.

    I suspect that as a modern Catholic Cato is trying to claim the historic legal status of the C of E and Crown as a resource for his church in their claim that the EU should recognise Christianity as the heritage religion of Europe. Thus has to ignore the modern day practice of the UK government to rule the increasingly secular society by providing for all the faiths within it – just as all secular democracies do by treating the people as equal regardless of religious faith difference (and lack of faith group affiliation etc). Charles describes this practice as having the Crown act as defender of faith rather than just the C of E.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    kowtow (6,085 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    V2

    New Zealand was always a part of the Great game.NZ was Empire.That’s why we participated ,it wasn’t long ago that England was “Home
    =========================
    Not really, we had stupid politicans then as now. They were so lacking in intellectual capcirty as to enforce conscription. So many soldiers really had no choice but to join the game. Many I suspect were like many of the serfs in wars from 1800 onwards and joined because of the promise of pay as compared with starving at home.

    The polticians bravdo on others behalf was great but none went to war. Some soldiers who did became politicans later. John Lee comes to mind and he was banned from being a Cabinet Minister because the rest of the Labour Cabinet were mostly Aussie Pacifists who came here to escape conscription in Aussie.

    Notable National war soldiers were Duncan McIntrye,Rob Muldoon, and a few others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. MH (703 comments) says:

    in the giant Bombadon script by the goons the walls of Sebastopol varied between 20′ and 10′ 6″ thick -Disraeli wanted to know what happened to the missing 9′ 6″….British troops retreated 1/4 of an inch,what made them panic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Further to MH’s 5.39 post:

    I stand corrected. I didn’t realise conscription was introduced for Maori later in the war, though the NZ History web site says this:

    As Waikato was seen as the centre of opposition to Maori participation, conscription was only imposed on Maori from Tainui–Waikato. It was also argued that other iwi had ‘done their bit’.

    IMHO, Tainui’s resistance to conscription was understandable, and Maori have been willing and able in NZ’s defence since those days.

    For those wanting the details:

    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/maori-in-first-world-war/resistence-to-conscription

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Jack5

    ‘Re Nostalgia-NZ’s 5.27: it was the NZ Army and the NZ Government – not the British – that put Maori into the Pioneer Battalion with the object of minimising casualties’.

    Yes, I’ve read that. Don’t necessarily accept it though because of the ‘political’ issue surrounding the Pioneer Battalion’s presence and the ‘Imperial policy on native people fighting.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @SPC – “It just shows how Orwellian things are getting in the UK – a nation with a proud history now subordinating it to the needs of the modern political society.”

    Agreed – very much so.
    Things are becoming more Orwellian by the month there, as DPF picked up on with the article yesterday about the UK’s new “internet filter” –
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/01/the_uk_internet_filter.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. MH (703 comments) says:

    Four members of the House of Representatives (JG Coates MC and bar, JB Hine, TEY Seddon and WD Stewart) enlisted while retaining their places in the House. Another (WHD Bell) enlisted before resigning his place. Seddon and Stewart (from opposite sides of the House) ‘paired’ for the duration of the war so that their absence would not affect voting and enlisted as privates to encourage recruiting. Prime Minister Bill Massey was not keen on those from his side enlisting because of his wafer-thin majority but eventually relented. One member of the Legislative Council (WE Collins) also enlisted.
    from usual sources…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    thor42, the “UK’s” chosen response to a more diverse society is an increase in the power of government. It’s due to national insecurity over EU membership obligations (labour movement), immigration and the conflict with militant Islam and partly to do with globalisation – national governments being left with the legal and political management of local populations losing their sovereignty over their own destiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Fentex (922 comments) says:

    They were on the British side, though, weren’t they?

    Why individual soldiers fight differs for many, they certainly aren’t a monolith dedicated to what nationalists, politicians and various propagandists will claim they are. Some will be seeking adventure, some fight for loyalty to country, some for belief in a cause, many simply through peer pressure and comity with their fellows.

    Just because a person fought with some allies does not mean their personal opinions aligned with others. In New Zealand’s case a good example is the many Maori pressed into service not seeing any reason to die for foolish European ambitions.

    I think you’re idealising you ancestor, Fentex. If he was a pacifist he would have been unlikely to have come to NZ for peace, when NZ was embroiled in decades-long settler-Maori wars.

    You make many unwarranted assumptions, not least the date of my ancestors arrival – pre-treaty and decades pre-land wars.

    I did not call him a pacifist – he fought at Waterloo – I wrote (mentioning that he’d had enough of pointless battles) to illustrate that statements about all New Zealanders may make assumptions that lead to inaccurate claims. Those who have lived in New Zealand since people first came a thousand odd years ago are not a monolithic group whose ambitions and self image can simply be claimed for anyone’s personal cause and propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    What would Cunliffe have to say about this? He who wants the RSA movement disestablished! Yes that is correct, along with honouring Japanese prisoners in Wairarapa . . . what a beast.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Dave_1924 (113 comments) says:

    If the UK government goes ahead and doesn’t recognise the old commonwealth countries like NZ, Aussie, Canada then frankly that is just wrong. NZer’s volunteered in there droves to fight for the motherland in the Boer War, WWI and at the beginning of WWII.

    The ties between and the UK are deep – a huge majority of NZer’s would have a blood tie to one of the 4 home countries that make up the UK…. turning their back on the sacrifice of NZ, Aussie, Canada troops to appease some sense of Imperial Regret is lunacy.

    Frankly as a half Brit Kiwi I am damn proud my ancestors ruled and empire that spanned the global. It wasn’t perfect by any means but its methods where/are the methods of all imperial powers since the year dot.

    Mr Key should lodge a formal and loud protest on this matter – its a joke…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Fentex posted at 6.23:

    In New Zealand’s case a good example is the many Maori pressed into service not seeing any reason to die for foolish European ambitions.

    Jeez, Fentex! We’ve just thrashed out that Maori were exempt from conscription except for Tainui late in World War 1, and no Maori conscripts served overseas. Tainui conscripts totalled a few hundred compared with about 135,000 conscripted in NZ in World War 1.

    In World War 2, Maori were exempt from conscription ( more than 310,000 New Zealanders were conscripted), but about 15,750 volunteered and many served overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    As for the ‘Nationlism’ aspect, as Fentex points out there is no universal reason why they fight. ‘sequels 4,43′ reminds me that Shadbolt was one of those that gave wings to the ‘myth’ of ‘Nationhood’ arising after Gallipoli. I know that he was fortunate to be able to interview many vets prior to writing the play ‘Once On Chunuck Bair’ which gives weight to his argument. I don’t recall ever speaking to him about either the Pioneers or Tunnelers as I knew little if anything about them them at the time. Of course the Tunnelers went into service in Europe whilst the Pioneers went first to the middle east. Two tunnelers I got to know very well as a boy and who would have been in their eighties probably, were both English, at least one having been a remittance man. It gives weight to the argument of the sense of being a New Zealander arising from WW1 and probably the Boer War. The remittance men could easily have decided to stay in the old Country after the war and their reasons for being ‘remittance’ men would have been rendered in some way by virtue of their war service in a new Country. It was their choice to return here and at least be among the men they fought with and in the Country whose Army in which they served. I haven’t read much about the view of the Maori Battalion members of their forebears in the Pioneers who weren’t at first allowed to fight. But it wouldn’t be surprising if some of them, particularly the officers, were mindful of taking up the cudgels on behalf of their Army forebears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    The silly politics I can kind of understand, and handle.

    But the Brits joining the modern trend of re-writing history to suit the political drivers of the present is beyond scary.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ posted at 7.11:

    …Two tunnelers I got to know very well as a boy and who would have been in their eighties probably, were both English, at least one having been a remittance man. ..

    Most of the NZ tunnellers of World War 1 were miners recruited from the West Otago and Otago, where there was coal and quartz-gold mining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. edhunter (535 comments) says:

    Sadly within my lifetime I will see ANZAC day relegated to the annals of history as a misguided celebration of an unprovoked invasion of another sovereign state.
    Repent you Sinners, Repent! especially you! middle class white man you are evil incarnate!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    And a big bunch from Waihi. Typically older men, set in their ways. Some interesting stuff recorded regarding the ‘Waihi’ men at least and how the tunnellers ‘shown’ by the Brits how to dig ‘broke’ the rules and established a new minimum tunnel height in order to work quicker and give relief to the taller men among them. Of course by then in the mix would have been the sons of some of ‘The Fencibles’ who managed to secure land around Coromandel and others who had stayed on and farmed after the gold began to ‘dry up.’ All the while they worked they would be pausing to listen for tunnellers coming from the German lines and from memory were never caught be an explosion as they dug out under enemy positions to blow them up. Some of the enormous ‘pits’ remain and it would be easy to argue for present danger and claustrophobia tunnellers and submariners must rank even.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Fentex (922 comments) says:

    We’ve just thrashed out that Maori were exempt from conscription except for Tainui late in World War 1, and no Maori conscripts served overseas.

    I was not aware the conscripted were not sent into battle, it’s news to me (if discussed here it’s something I must have skipped over), so it wasn’t an example relevant to peoples motives in fighting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ edhunter

    I am not sure about that. ANZAC day parades are getting increasing larger numbers, as grandchildren and great grandchildren seek to remember their fighting ancestors.

    My grandfather fought and was injured at Passchendaele. He came to NZ as a young man from Britain, and as soon as war was declared he volunteered to fight. He was turned down due to eyesight issues however when the rules were made less severe he enlisted.

    I am named (not Judith) after the french nurse that saved his life. It created a bond that meant we were extremely close, and even though he died many years ago, I remember the things he said as if it was yesterday. I know for a fact he regarded the New Zealanders that fought with him, including Maori, as some of the ‘best fellows one could ever meet’. I have their photos on the wall in front of me, and that is written on the back of one of them.

    Whilst he would be disgusted with his ‘home land’ for ignoring NZ, I know all he would ask is the WE (the loved ones, the family) remember. He fought for the future, and regardless of whether the English chose to remember the kiwis or not, it is up to us, those that are here to make sure we do not forget.

    Stuff the English – we can do this without them – We will remember them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. wat dabney (3,709 comments) says:

    Stuff the English – we can do this without them “

    It’s not the English doing this, it’s the cunting political class.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. edhunter (535 comments) says:

    Judith while I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments you expressed, unless we make a stand & actually stick up for what we hold dear the PC, tree hugging, gay loving, university educated, we know what’s best for you, vocal minority will have their wicked way with us.
    I’m now resident in Oz & I’m really gobsmacked by the thought that “Australia Est 1788″ is racist, & that stores have had to pull T-Shirts that say just that.
    Sadly if we carry on the way we’re going ANZAC Day will become just a sordid chapter in the rewritten history of our 2 great nations.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    ‘I was not aware the conscripted were not sent into battle, it’s news to me (if discussed here it’s something I must have skipped over), so it wasn’t an example relevant to peoples motives in fighting.’

    It would have become one because if the volunteers were first not allowed to fight, and others joined ‘fighting’ battalions – then conscripts I imagine would have not wished to be seen as unwilling to fight. As some of the literature points out many joined along tribal lines, I doubt any tribes would have wished to be seen as non-fighters or that if they had it wouldn’t still be contentious, or still a ‘stick’ to point during rivalries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Duxton (636 comments) says:

    Ed Snack

    Sorry, but you are laying with figures.

    New Zealand suffered a higher rate of battle casualties, in proportion to the number of personnel deployed, than any other country involved in WW1. Period.

    Even Germany accepts this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. stephieboy (2,693 comments) says:

    From what I gather from this link it was France that suffered the highest casualty rate as a percentage of population,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

    Deaths NZ 1.64%
    France 4.29 UK 2.19

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Duxton (636 comments) says:

    Further to my last, just over 100,000 NZers were sent overseas in WW2, and 58% were killed or wounded. This is a higher casualty rate than any other country involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. stephieboy (2,693 comments) says:

    Again that does not seem right. Total military deaths for NZ was 11.900 0.73% of the population . Naturally countries like Poland and the USSR were catastrophic ,let alone the Third Reich,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

    But regardless the ANZACS need to be given their due recognition for their contribution and burden in the WW1 Centenary.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    No one should deny any sacrifice made by any country in war, but to put things in some perspective, as a percentage of population, if Indian troops has died at the same rate as NZ troops, they would have lost over 6 million men as opposed to 74000.

    When you consider that, you start to realise what a major demographic impact that large loss in a small population base actually had.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “fucking arseholes” is how I would describe the NZ soldiers who took part in the Boer War.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Paulus (2,602 comments) says:

    My granddaughter, the daughter of a serving officer, asked me a couple of years ago, “why there are no Maori names on the War Memorials ?”.
    I said there are some in the small towns around but not for WW1, as I did not think there were any serving at the time.
    Correct me please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. MaxG (7 comments) says:

    There is a memorial for the Maori soldiers who died in Wanganui

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Re Paulus at 11.25:

    Your granddaughter is wrong. There are Maori names on NZ war monuments.

    If your granddaughter lives in the Waikato, that may be one explanation. War memorials were erected by local communities, and the Waikato tribe, Tainui, boycotted calls for volunteers for World War 1 service. As a result, towards the end of the war, they alone among Maori were subject to conscription, but no Maori conscript was sent overseas. There may or may not have been any Waikato Maori casualties in World War 1.

    Many part-Maori and some Maori served in general units, but the Maori unit in World War 1 was a Pioneer battalion, which was in a support role with relatively low casualties, and up to half of its men were non-Maori.

    It’s likely that only between 2 and 3 per cent of the New Zealanders who served overseas in World War 1 were Maori. So there are relatively few Maori names on our World War 1 monuments, but they are there. Remember, too, that some of those who identified as Maori had English surnames.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Jackinabox (10.01 post) usually surfaces to express his hatred for the police whenever a thread mentions them.

    So you hate Kiwis who fought in the Boer War, do you Jackinabox? Wouldn’t be a Voortrekker by any chance, would you Jackinabox?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,744 comments) says:

    You know what is really weird?

    Russia’s massive contribution to the side of good in both World Wars:

    World War I casualties

    World War II casualties

    Yet the Actual Russia Population falls from 175.1 million in 1914 to 168.5 million by 1939.
    I guess the progress of socialism advanced by leftards wasn’t meant for all. Put another way, Stalin made a hell of a lot of omelets.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    The Boer War was a bit different Britain should have allowed Independence. NZers and Australians in WW2 easily outperformed India, Bangladesh and Nigeria and any west African nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,744 comments) says:

    I guess one of the takeaway messages from World War I to tell your kids is you can be a conscientious objector, get jailed for sedition and it won’t affect your future career prospects. In fact it will help you become a Labour Prime Minister for World War II. Then you can send over people’s kids off to far away lands to be slaughtered. Hypocrisy and Socialism, the more things change the more they stay the same.

    AKA, Hero of the people, Peter Fraser:

    Peter Fraser (New Zealand politician)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    What if the Germans had won the first world war?
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/25/if-germans-won-first-world-war

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Psycho Milt (2,406 comments) says:

    You know what is really weird?

    Russia’s massive contribution to the side of good in both World Wars.

    Given that it was on the side of protecting and if possible extending its absolute monarchist empire in WW1, and on the side of protecting and if possible extending an even worse empire in WW2, what’s actually really weird is that anyone thinks they were on the side of “good.” Still, you have to admit: if the Nazis had defeated the Soviet Union in WW2, by the mid-1940s central and eastern Europe would have been dominated by a murderous totalitarian dictatorship… oh, wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Voortrekker was a bit before my time Jacks5 but my parents called me Jaapie when I was a lovely little lad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    If the Allies had kept out of WW2 Nazi Germany and Communist Russia would have destroyed each other so both problems would have been solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Jack5 (5,014 comments) says:

    Re Jackinabox at 3.38:

    I’m surprised! All the Jaapies I know are pretty law abiding types. Shouldn’t you be in the police team, Jackinabox?

    What happened?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Crusader (302 comments) says:

    You know what is really weird?
    Russia’s massive contribution to the side of good in both World Wars:

    1. It is more correct to talk about the Soviet Union than “Russia” when considering WW2 figures.
    2. It is highly dubious to talk about the “side of good” if we are talking about the Red Army that slaughtered and raped its way across Eastern Europe and Germany, sank refugee ships, and set up corrupt Stalinist regimes that remained in power for the next 44 years.
    3. Anyone, Russian or Soviet, fighting in the Red Army was conscripted and forced to advance into suicidal situations. NKVD “blocking units” behind them would shoot anyone who retreated, and generals would regularly be purged to the Gulag or shot. Disease, death camps and sheer cold made an impact on casualties on the Eastern Front that simply did not on the Western. This makes comparisons difficult and the word “contribution” is less applicable here than “losses suffered”.
    4. Soviet population figures were significantly affected by the Holodomor famine that followed enforced collectivization and class warfare against the Ukrainian peasants (often considered a genocide) rather than losses in war. Soviet statisticians who reported the population falls were also purged and shot.
    5. As has been alluded to, obtuse “useful idiots” of the West continued to support and propagandize on behalf of the Soviet Union throughout these deadly years (e.g. you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, etc), the prize fool Walter Duranty being one of these.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    German intelligence financed the Bolsheviks
    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/pearson/pearson_18.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “I’m surprised! All the Jaapies I know are pretty law abiding types. Shouldn’t you be in the police team, Jackinabox?

    What happened?”

    I am a law abiding type Jacks5, it’s the cops that are bent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    First world war: an imperial bloodbath that’s a warning, not a noble cause
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/first-world-war-imperial-bloodbath-warning-noble-cause

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.