PEACE AND ANZAC DAY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20097, 2 May 1935, Page 6

PEACE AND ANZAC DAY

To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir,—lt is customary now for speakers at Anzac Day services to emphasise the horrors of the Great War and the necessity of avoiding another. No speaker, however, appears to have dared to say, even if he has thought it, that Anzac Day itself may have an influence not helpful to peace. idea may seem absurd, perhaps almost* blasphemous, to many people, but there is a good deal to be said in its support. In spite of the talk of peace, the most moving associations of the observance are national and military. By the experiences that it exists to recall, the people of this country were for the first time in our history united into one group, acting, thinking and feeling alike. As has often been remarked, this intensely felt identity of purpose and feeling is one of the main attractions of war, the more so because it is always accompanied by an expression of violent hate for the enemy. It is, in fact, very largely the projection on to the enemy of the hateful qualities usually seen in near neighbours at home, that makes the sense of national unity so strong in wartime. To be able to give open expression to feelings that are, during peace time, disapproved of by both individual and society, is for all people who wish to be thought normal, a most satisfying experience. Days of remembrance do not exist only to “commemorate the dead,” they owe their continuance partly also to our desire to recapture some of the emotions of the intense days of war, when all our fellows felt and acted as we did, when we could give vent to our feelings and be sure of their approval. The truth of what has just been stated should be clear to all who reflect that on Anzac Day all differences are sunk, whether of class, politics, or religion. I cannot think of any other occasion when this occurs to the same degree. Ths observance of Easter, which might be instanced, is less intense and therefore less real to those who were adults during the Great War than that of Anzac Day; and the national associations that Anzac Day calls into life are a more powerful force in determining the response of younger people than those of Easter. In the ordinary daily routine, men who are shamefaced about their religion are outspoken in their expression of national feelings—a sufficient proof that they will respond much more energetically and enthusiastically to the claims of country than to those of God. How many of us are prepared to assert that these always, or usually, coincide? In practice, Christianity is a world religion in peace, but a narrow and debased natioilal one in war. Though the name

of God is frequently invoked at Anzac services, He is only the lubricant for the machine and not the machine itself. The machine is national feeling, and the forces that make it work are the Union Jack, the “Last Post,” the Roll of Honour, the Firing Squad. These are inevitably associated in our minds with death, destruction, hatred, the thrill of uniforms, the lust of war, as well as with self-sacrifice, devotion to duty, comradeship, the nausea of waiting, the pain of loss. Whether he knows it or not, the emotions of anyone entering fully into the Anzac service have much the same quality and direction as they had during the war. They are fainter, of course, and made more diffuse by the consciousness that “after all we won the war,” they are taking on fresh vigour under the stress of reawakened fear of the Germans. Anzac Day is regarded by many people as a spiritual 4th of July, commemorating New Zealand’s new won nationhood. “On the blood-stained fields of Flanders, New Zealand first proved her nationhood” is frequently said, the assumption here is that war is the sole means of testing the worth of a nation, an assumption based on a primitively simple idea of the character of the men who have to do the fighting for a nation. Its acceptance by most people is another indication of the unconscious drift of their thought. The Great War was not a test of superiority of one nation’s manhood over another’s; it was a test of resources. We got from it the satisfaction of knowing that we had many men as brave as the Germans, or the French, or the Cossacks, though the loss of 17,000 of these seems a little too heavy a price to pay for the knowledge. Exactly how this can be considered proof of our country’s having achieved nationhood is not very clear. In this context, it is doubtful if the term “nationhood” has any objective significance. Actually, if there were much truth in this idea of the meaning of Anzac Day, one would expect some improvement to have taken place in the tone of our national life, but it is impossible to detect any. There is some evidence, on the other hand, of deterioration as one reason for which must be given the war that is supposed to have afforded New Zealand the chance of proving her nationhood. Those who defend its continuance must find another justification for the observance of Anzac Day than this. —I am, etc., W. J. SCOTT. Tiparu, April 30.