In a review of John Laffin's Jackboot, a history of the German soldier, Cousin Dampier asks "can a nation-state be a warrior-state, and can the people of a nation be summarily cast in their entirety as natural-born soldiers?"
The idea that certain peoples or races are natural soldiers is widespread and longstanding. Laffin considered that "The German, every German, is a born soldier".
During two world wars, New Zealand, Australia and Canada provided the British empire with many of its elite infantry formations. These colonials, from largely agarian societies, believed that they were natural soldiers, of hardier stock than their British kin. Frontier societies, like the 18th century American colonies and the 19th century Boer republics, prided themselves on breeding irregular bush fighters who were tougher, smarter and better shots than European troops.
And in the 19th century, many British believed in the 'martial races' concept. This held that the best recruits for the Indian army came from ostensibly hardy and warlike ethnic groups: Sikhs, Nepalese, Jats, Dogras, Pathans and Rajputs.
I don't believe that any people can be considered as natural soldiers. At some stage, a nation will exist in an epoch of warfare, and generations of young men will serve in the armed forces and fight and die. Myths - a nation of soldiers, a warrior people - will evolve to condition individuals for military service and to sustain the society in war. When the epoch passes, the myths lose their utility and fade.
Ironically, there's no better example of this than Germany. Writing in 1965, Laffin believed that
"No, the Germans are not finished with war. For every German, peace is a suspension of the state of war. The German breathes war, he is imbued with it, he glorifies it."
After a century of German aggression against other nations, many would have agreed with him. Almost 45 years on, you'd struggle to find a less bellicose nation or people in Europe.
Recent Comments