Why Were Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Soldiers and Airmen So Effective in World War 1 and World War 2?
It is often assumed that Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand soldiers and airmen fought so well in World War 1 and World War 2 due to their inherent military prowess. However, the truth is more nuanced.
Individual and Unit Variability
Like any military force, units within the Allied armies, including the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand contingents, had their share of good and bad units. It's not entirely possible to generalize the performance of these soldiers and airmen. At the end of the day, they are still individuals, not perfect soldiers.
For instance, the infamous SS (Schutzstaffel) units, often portrayed as invincible, did occasionally surrender or retreat. The SS faced significant challenges and were not always able to maintain the myth of invincibility.
The Kokoda Track campaign, fought under extremely difficult circumstances in Papua New Guinea, is often cited as an example of exceptional fighting spirit. The small wonder that the Australians triumphed, considering the harsh environment and leadership issues they faced. In fact, they were sometimes chastised by their own command for their efforts at the time.
Advantages in Food and Living Conditions
The Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders benefited from better food and living conditions compared to their counterparts in Europe. Emerging from the industrial revolution, they were not subject to the poor conditions and exploitation that plagued the working classes in some parts of Europe. The industrial revolution had left its mark on the working class, with many enduring poor labor conditions and squalid living conditions.
Furthermore, the populations in these countries were well-organized in trade unions and enjoyed a higher standard of living, laying the groundwork for the creation of modern welfare states. This allowed for the flourishing of these nations and the production of proud citizens and soldiers. The British elite recognized this in 1940 when they observed the malnourished and poorly equipped British troops and compared them to the healthy, well-trained German youngsters in the Hitler Youth and the welfare state initiated by Bismarck.
This comparison led to the Beveridge Report and the subsequent creation of a more socially and economically healthy society in the UK. This welfare state ensured that its soldiers were well-fed and well-equipped, enhancing their effectiveness on the battlefield.
Support and Efficiency in Warfare
During both world wars, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand soldiers were not always the best, but in certain scenarios, they were effective. For example, in both wars, they received robust support from artillery and air forces. In the Pacific theater during World War 2, the Canadian forces received significant air support, which was crucial against the mobile and lightly equipped Japanese forces. The artillery support was critical in breaking through entrenched enemy defenses.
It is worth noting that the enemy in both wars, despite being well-equipped technologically, did not have the same levels of support or organization. The Japanese, for instance, were often outmatched in terms of air support and heavy artillery, especially in the early stages of the war.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand soldiers and airmen in World War 1 and World War 2 can be attributed to a combination of better living conditions, organized welfare states, and the strategic support they received. While individual units and soldiers exhibited exceptional bravery, the overall performance was also influenced by the broader context of their societies and the support they received on the battlefield.
Keywords: World War 1, World War 2, Canadian soldiers, Australian soldiers, New Zealand soldiers, effectiveness.