“PATHWAY AMONG MEN" QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP IN NEW ZEALAND DIVISION

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33654, 2 October 1974, Page 16

“PATHWAY AMONG MEN" QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP IN NEW ZEALAND DIVISION

The worst feature was the loss of so many old hands hardened 1 . and experienced in, desert warfare. In a month the New Zealand Divi.-i had lost over 150 officers, many of whom had come up through the r:a. and were absolutely irreplaceable at this stage of the war.

Many years later, Kip’ wrote an article entitled “New Zealand’s Greatest; Soldier.” In this article he! does not deal in names but; puts forward his opinion that there is a group of men who qualify for the description “greatest soldier.” This group, he says, must come from the infantry, who have the hardest conditions and the heaviest casualties. Then, he asks, who in the infantry? He is tempted to say the plain rifleman or Bren or Tommy gunner, “the man who just went on faithfully from one fight to another until he met his death, or was wounded or sick.” But he passes him over to consider N.C.O.s: “The| battle-hardened N.C.O. carrying responsibility not only; for himself and his own con-i duct, but for the men he' lived with and who were his' friends.” His choice does not fall here either and he moves on to the next group, the N.C.O.s who survived the! battles and were selected for commissions: “They came' back as infantry platoon commanders, and their chances were poor. Yet nearly all went on, one attack after another, long days and nights in the line. Responsibility lay heavy on them and they knew the men whose lives were in their care, but they seldom failed.” Finally he makes his decision: And from them rose the group, in my opinion entitled to be called our best soldiers—the longservice battalion and company commanders, and especially those who came up through the ranks. Completely dependable, brave by definition, there were no better soldiers. They did not fare particularly well for decorations; they recommended other people. Sometimes in the small hours they must have been afraid, with the fear that comes from experience often repeated and the knowledge that the pitcher can go too often to the well. But there were men commanding battalions or companies in 1918 who had been in the ranks at Gallipoli and in 1945 who had been riflemen in Greece. Their nerves were still good, at the least under firm control; they bore the burden of command, in the presence of death, until the very end. Those men, the battalion and company commanders who came up through the ranks, were, to my mind, our greatest soldiers. Tactical skill One such soldier to come up through the ranks to command a company was Charles Upham. Charles was wounded and taken prisoner at Ruweisat, after three weeks of heavy fighting in the course of which he earned a bar to his Victoria Cross. Much has been written about the exploits of the man <rtio twice won a Victoria Cross; less has been written about his ability as an officer, his tactical skill

and his qualities of leader-!' ship. Charles consistently main- : tained that but for his men!, he would never have won. any decorations. Even if this j were true, it would not de-1 tract in any way from his j achievements because it , says, more clearly than any- ; thing else could, that he was a natural leader. His men! certainly helped him in! everything he did but only , because he showed them the way and they went with him every step because he had their complete confidence. No-one could describe Charles as a textbook officer; yet he always showed sound common sense in his approach to military problems and on the parade ground he could be as correct and proper as a guardsman. His farming background and particularly his life in the high country of the South Island became evident when he had to cope with a practical problem and, like. most men who are essentially; practical, he was very thorough. His practicality j and thoroughness were virtues that recommended him to C Company long j before he won his V.C. Many men in C Company were I miners who knew the folly I of slovenly work. 1 have no doubt that from these same men Charles acquired his experience in handling explosives, a skill which led to his reliance on handgrenades as potent weapons of attack, especially at night. He carried them slung about his person when going into an attack, handled them with the confidence of an explosives expert and used them with professional assurance and accuracy, and with devastating effect. Eye for country Charles’s experience as a musterer gave him that uncanny eye for country which can be a great asset to a soldier. In his case it meant good eyesight, a flair for direction whether in darkness or daylight and a nice accuracy in judging distance. He knew exactly where dead ground would lie and he knew that folds in the ground which could hide sheep or cattle could equally well hide soldiers. I read somewhere that Charles disliked army discipline, was quarrelsome and was a constant thorn in the side of his superiors. This is nonsense. He was certainly unorthodox and if he felt something had to be said, he spoke his mind without fear or favour. He would argue endlessly on his favourite topics but never with rancour. Sometimes, if he felt strongly enough about his subject, he would draw on his musterer’s vocabulary to emphasise his points and when he did his audience was left in no doubt as to his meaning. Far from being a difficult individual to deal with, he was, as far as I was concerned, a loyal officer in whom I had complete confidence and faith. He was a soldier first and foremost, competent and absolutely reliable. His company, to a man, were ready to do anything he asked. I think I should add that he bluffed nobody by his outbursts of back-country invective. By nature he was in fact shy, retiring, modest and generous—generous indeed to the point of foolishness. He was such easy prey for the soldier in his company who had run out of money that he must have had a very empty pay book himself. I doubt if he ever

made any effort to get . r.t of his money back. No comment on Charles Upham's qualities as a lea !< • would be complete without reference to the £lo,o‘m which was raised by the proud and grateful citizens of Christchurch to buy him a farm. Nothing illustrates better his conception of what he understands to be the duty of every citizen to his country and in particular the duty of a leader to his men. than the refusal of this gift and the request that it be diverted to help the sons of servicemen less fortunate than he . . . ... Men who served with him saw nothing out of character in his refusal to benefit “in any way through having carried out his duty.'' This gesture, fine as it was in its unselfishness and generosity, was for them just another example of his determination always to put the welfare of others before himself. The best natural leaders with whom I have served, whether officers or N.C.O.’s, have all possessed in some degree the quality of “selflessness.” There has been no soldier in my experience. however, who has possessed this quality in greater measure than Charles Upham. Along with Kip, I had something to do with ensuring that Charles was given , recognition for his actions in battle, many of which I 'witnessed for myself. But 1 i would be sorry if he were I remembered solely for his personal courage. He was jalso a fine platoon and company commander, a shrewd I tactician and, above all, a natural leader who had the complete confidence of th< men under his command. Soldier-leader Kip held a very special place in the hearts of all men who served under his command in war. Those who knew him in peace know only the military historian, the quietly-spoken, shy, retiring scholar. Kip the soldier was still quietly spoken, courteous and shy, and his outward manner and frail body gave no evidence that here was one of New Zealand’s great soldierleaders, a leader whose success was all the more remarkable because it was as an amateur that he went to war. Certainly behind him lay a long record of study of military history, which followed his very youthful experience of active service in Flanders where, at the age of 18, he was severely wounded. Between wars he devoted all his spare time to the Ist Canterbury Territorial Regiment. This deep study of war and of war histories and the game of cricket were his two loves. Yet it is not the exploits of the successful soldier that are recalled now when returned soldiers speak of Kip. Rather they remember the extraordinary bond that linked a leader and his men, a bond of such loyalty, respect and affection that it makes one of the heartwarming stories of the war. In the preface he wrote to 20 Battalion’s official war history Kip mentioned the “high dedicated endeavour” of our soldiers in war. These words, I believe, not only supply the key to his own character but they also i explain the faith and trust he inspired in others. Men who served under him soon i recognised the true soldier , with the true soldier’s regard • for his troops; ambitious, not i for himself, but for the battalion, the brigade, the division. Perhaps his experience in the ranks in World War 1 ■ while he was still little more i than a boy made him always ; give first consideration to the ■ point of view of the private • soldier. He loved his men. He ' knew a great many of them • individually. He was lenient f towards wrongdoers, but i showed no mercy to officers : or N.C.O.s who in his opinion • had let the men down.

After Brigadier L. M. Inglis came back to command the 4th Brigade, Brigadier J. T. Burrows, author of “Pathway Among Men," returned to the 20th Battalion, and faced the task of rebuilding it for the second time. In the final instalment from his autobiography 1 he gives his impressions of his former commanding officer, Major-General Sir Howard Kippenberger, and one of his company commanders, Captain C. H. Upham, V.C. and Bar.