A COMPARISON.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16221, 25 May 1918, Page 4

A COMPARISON.

AUSTRALIAN AMD NEW ZEALAND SOLDIERS.

Two comparisons of New Zealand and ; Australian soldiers were made b\ . Colonel R. A. Chaffcy at tlie Overseas, Club's Empire Day demonstration hist; evening. The figures, which had been | given him were, he believed, absolute-J lv correct. Out of every nineteen and a half boys sent from New Zealand, he saul, o™ never rcached France. Of the Australians, one in lour never I'eachecl France. That bore out what our Defence authorities said. when they stated that our training system was rrood and sound, because it showed the verv small percentage which did not reach the firing line as compared with our neighbours, whose training period wr.s shorter than ours, or else, it proved that our boys kept themseh es lit and in good trim intent upon reachins the firing line. • Colonel Chaffey then referred to the number of New Zealand soldiers taken prisoner as compared with the number ot Australians. He wondered how many people had any idea how many acw Z-alanders had been taken pnsonoi. Tl-e last record, one of six weeks ago, and lie did not believe there was a lf-.ter one, showed that 125 of our boys were prisoners. On the other hand there were 3440 Australian prisoners in the hands of the Germans. OF course, Australia had sent a much ] irger number of men to the fron.t than ve had, but still the proportion of Australian prisoners was very much larger being ten or twelve times as great-' What did that prove?—that our boys went on fighting till there was ; nobody left to be taken prisoner or else that thev were so cunning and fought so well "that no prisoners could be taken. This country should be very proud of the fact that the highest authorities in the Old Country said the New Zealand Division, if not the very best in the Army, was equal to the best and came in the first two. Therefore the reason why there were so few prisoners was because our men were i so well trained that their either fought I I to a finish or thev fought so well that the Germans could not take them. That | was the only solution he could think of. i Later, tlie Rev. J. Paterson, who is I an Australian, speaking in semi-humor- | ous strain, criticised Colonel Chaffey's remarks, stating that his logic was | very fallacious, as there might be quite a number of other explanations to account lor the disparity in the number 1 of prisoners. It might be that the New ' Zealanders; cleared out before the Ger- ■ mans could get near them. (Laughter.) It was not wise to make comparisons | particularly. All sections thought they j were the real life blood of the Empire, i The Englishman -thought he was. ihc I Scotchmen thought ho was, the Irishman thought ho was. But all these different types .made up the strength of I the British nation, the Scotchman looking after the bawbees and the finances, the Englishman doing the hard work and saving* very little about it, the Irishman guarding the Empire's liberties, and the Welshman looking after its piety—a very happy combination. Instead" of making comparisons wo r-bould look at our differences and glory in them.