WW100 - why did NZ fight? Was it for democracy or empire?   20 Oct 2014

Charlotte Everett

Click for a larger image

Event photos courtesy of NZ-UK Link/@nicolatree Photos copyright Nicola Tree; used with permission

Charlotte Everett

Related articles

• Making migration work: lessons from New Zealand Migration

On Thursday 16 October, the NZ-UK Link Foundation held their Inaugural Annual Lecture at the University of London’s Senate House, and I was privileged enough to attend. This year’s lecture was given by Sir Hew Strachan, one of Britain’s leading military and First World War historians, and entitled: ‘Democracy or empire? Reflections on the British imperial experience of the First World War’.

The event was run in association with the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICwS), and part of Imperial War Museum’s Centenary Programme Partnership. A number of honoured guests were in attendance, including the New Zealand High Commissioner, Sir Lockwood Smith.

It was an incredibly thought-provoking lecture that still has my mind ticking over – but I will attempt to convey what I took from the evening.

Sir Hew opened by addressing the questions:

Why did we fight?

Was it for British values and the rights of small nations – or rather for the British right to run its empire?

He went on to quote two very different men on the British side of the war – one, John A. Lee, a civilian-turned-soldier (and later, a politician) from Dunedin in New Zealand’s South Island – and the other, King George V.

The stark difference of perspective illuminates the dilemma of military service for Commonwealth citizens in the army in 1914. Men are given citizenship and the care of the State – and in return, they have the reciprocal duty to protect the State at war. The understanding of “democracy” was very different in 1914 – in truth, there really wasn’t one as far as the British Empire was concerned. Approximately 40% of British men did not have the right to vote in 1914, and as far as the empire was concerned, Britain was controlling the rights of a multitude of small nations far from home.  George V called on his subjects to defend democracy – but the understanding of democracy at the time was simply one of civic and military duty. For civilian volunteers in uniform such as Lee, it was a loss of liberty – whereas from the perspective of George V, it was in defence of liberty.

How far could the British Empire of 1914 be described as a democratic institution? Canada, Australia and New Zealand were important to the empire, because they were members of it voluntarily, rather than by force. Moreover, they were tied to Britain by colonial migrants and a shared culture. By contrast, other parts of the empire – such as West Africa – were perceived by Britain as uncivilized, yet their men were fighting to prove to Britain that they are citizens, not mere subjects, and equal to citizens of British ancestral descent.

Ultimately, the involvement of the wider empire in the First World War focussed mostly on Canada, Australia and New Zealand because these three nations were considered as equal partners, even if other members of the empire were not. It’s important to note however that the three nations were not free to choose whether or not to enter the war (that order came from London) – but they were free to decide how they would fight that war.

New Zealand joined the Great War on 31 July 1914. In contrast to Britain, New Zealand was rather more ahead in terms of the modern definition of democracy. More adult men, including Maori, certainly had the right to vote – and indeed, women had been given the right to vote in New Zealand since 1893. Furthermore, New Zealand held a wartime election; by contrast Britain chose not to and essentially ruled during wartime without a parliamentary mandate.

The major point where New Zealand followed Britain’s lead and differed from Canada and Australia was the introduction of conscription in 1916. By this time, the voluntary system of enlistment had come to represent inequality, and compulsory service had come to represent equality of sacrifice. Conscription ensured that 20% of all eligible New Zealand males were sent to war, versus only 13.5% of eligible males from Australia and Canada.

Sir Hew’s lecture was concluded with a Question and Answer session. One guest in attendance raised the question of the Gallipoli campaign as the “birth of nations”, as far as the ANZACs are concerned. Sir Lockwood Smith commented in response by saying that in New Zealand, the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840 is seen more as “the day of our nationhood, whereas ANZAC Day is undoubtedly New Zealand’s most sacred day”.  He went on to say, “But it is growing. I see so many young people out on ANZAC Day wearing their Great-Grandfather’s medals – and it’s the same in Australia. It’s getting bigger. Gallipoli and ANZAC Day are what make us [Australia and New Zealand] unique in our national identity.”

Sir Hew responded to Sir Lockwood’s remarks by commenting on the vast difference between those ANZACs returning home to Australia in contrast to New Zealand. He suggested that many returning to Australia in the 1920s saw ANZAC Day as a day to party (similar to how returning British soldiers saw Armistice Day), whereas in New Zealand ANZAC Day was held as a sacred day, with pubs closed and sombre observance. He further remarked that it’s interesting to see ANZAC Day held with such reverence in New Zealand despite the fact that more New Zealand soldiers died at Passchendaele on the Western Front than at Gallipoli.

The evening was concluded with a drinks reception sponsored by the New Zealand High Commission.

NZ-UK Link put on a captivating and highly interesting evening, and I look forward to attending their lectures in future. Attendance is free and open to anyone, but registration essential – so I hope that you will join us at future events.

Add a comment