I recently watched several
episodes of the National Geographic documentary series Last War Heroes. The programmes covered the decisive period of
World War II from the D-Day invasion of Normandy to the arrival of Allied forces
in Berlin, the black heart of the Third Reich.
The title might give the
impression that the series glorified war, but no. It was unflinchingly honest
in its depiction of what war was really like.
In addition to the terror and
tension of combat, soldiers had to endure bitter cold, hunger and even boredom.
We tend to think of the Allied advance into Germany in 1944 as a triumphant,
unstoppable roll, almost a jaunt, but it was nothing of the sort.
German resistance was fierce and GIs, soldiers in the
best-equipped and technologically most advanced army in history, sometimes
lacked adequate food, ammunition and clothing.
Then there were the
unspeakable sights that nothing could have prepared these men for, such as the
heaps of pitifully emaciated bodies in the concentration camps they liberated.
One piece of stomach-churning footage showed a bulldozer pushing a jumble of
naked corpses into a mass grave – proof that, at its worst, war is about the
shredding of the last vestige of human dignity.
The series followed a
familiar format: interviews with former soldiers and airmen, interspersed with
film footage from the war. But it was the interviews that made far the greater
impression.
There was a quiet dignity
about these men – Americans, Canadians and British – as they recalled their
wartime experiences. There were no big egos, no wallowing in glory. If
anything, the tone of the interviews was one of sorrow and melancholy.
These were ordinary men who
had experienced unimaginably awful things and been left deeply affected. The
contrast with the crass heroics of Hollywood war movies couldn’t have been more
marked.
I have noticed the same quality
in documentaries featuring New Zealand veterans, including those of the Maori
Battalion; softly-spoken men whose quiet humility gave no clue to their
formidable reputation as soldiers. To see these noble old men shedding
unashamed tears over the graves of former comrades in faraway countries is
profoundly moving.
With every year, fewer of
these veterans survive. It can’t be long before the last one goes. But
throughout New Zealand, thousands will turn out on Anzac Day to solemnly honour
them.
This is an extraordinary
turnaround after the 1960s and 70s, when people of my generation – the Vietnam
War protest generation – were inclined to view the Returned Services’
Association and all its members as crusty, reactionary old warmongers.
Anti-war sentiment was so
strong then that soldiers who served in Vietnam almost had to skulk back into
the country in secret for fear of ostracism and abuse.
Shamefully, they got very
little support from the government that had sent them to fight. It wasn’t until
decades later that those Vietnam veterans felt confident enough to march in the
streets and reclaim their history.
Now, even people who were
active in the anti-Vietnam protest movement are likely to turn up at Anzac Day
commemorations with their grandkids. We’ve mellowed with age and become a bit
less judgmental in our understanding of the past.
What we can probably never
fully understand is what impelled men to enlist for military service in the two
world wars, knowing their lives might be placed at risk. It’s harder still to
grasp what inspired ordinary New Zealanders – bank tellers, farmers, labourers,
clerks – to behave with extraordinary bravery on the battlefield, as many
thousands did; to face enemy fire knowing their next breath could be their
last.
I have never entirely bought
the idea that they went to war to preserve freedom and democracy. That seems a
convenient modern spin to put on it.
I suspect that to many
soldiers, especially in World War I, freedom and democracy were probably
abstract concepts. More likely they were fighting for king and country out of a
simple sense of patriotic duty.
Very few in World War I were
likely to have understood the complex dynamics and power plays that
precipitated the war. But what soldiers in both world wars would have
comprehended was that the British Empire, of which they were part, was under threat.
No doubt a desire for adventure
and travel, opportunities not widely available in the first half of the 20th
century, would have been an additional incentive to enlist. But their sense of duty and loyalty,
values which sound quaintly anachronistic now, would have been the crucial
motivator.
That leaves the other
question that probably only men who served can answer. What gave
them the courage, resilience and determination not only to endure the trauma of the
battlefield, but to face death with apparent equanimity when every instinct
must have screamed at them to cower in a foxhole or turn and run?
An American veteran in Last War Heroes may have supplied the
answer. “The greatest fear for me,” he said, “was to let my friends down.”
In other words, they drew
strength and courage from each other. It’s something known as esprit de corps,
and probably the only men who really know what it means are those who depended
on each other for their lives.
It does seem that the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli has become the chance to alter or at least twist history - today's column by Chris Trotter is a good (or bad) example. To me this does little to help our understanding and is unnecessary at this time especially and sometimes is quite offensive.
ReplyDeleteI have just finished 'The Regiment' by Farley Mowat which I can recommend. What does strike you and is echoed in your piece is that even though they had clearly lost the German soldiers kept fighting and indeed with an increased ferocity. The book is about a Canadian regiment in Italy but there were echoes of the New Zealand experience I thought.