Saving Australia :: View topic

Sotirios Theodonatos · Guest

May 03, 2006
FIRST his laughable performance at the AWB inquiry, now this ("Labor has a history of blind pacifism", 2/5).
Does the Foreign Minister really not understand the difference between appeasement and pacifism?
As a committed socialist and pacifist, John Curtin explored every means available to him to avoid taking this country into a war that he was ideologically against, and personally horrified by â€“ hence his discussion with the Japanese.
So while every other warmonger at the time was ready to sacrifice tens of millions of lives for imperial domination, Curtin was doing his utmost to obtain a peaceful resolution.
So, Mr Downer, please try to understand, and stop trying to rewrite Australian history for your own ideological purposes.
Sotirios Theodoratos
Dulwich Hill, NSW

(From: the forum@the australian.com.au)

Brent Howard · Guest

LABOR has supported Australian involvement in various military actions. Alexander Downer's accusation of pacifism are absurd.
Both the Coalition and the ALP rejected war to free Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. This was understandable given that the war has, not unexpectedly, probably caused at least 70,000 deaths so far. The difference is that only Labor had the good sense to oppose an illegal war in March 2003 based on overblown fears about Iraq's supposed weapons.
The ANZUS alliance is about Australia and the US supporting one another if attacked. It is certainly not about Australia joining nearly every war the US fights regardless of whether it is just, prudent or supported by the Australian community.
Only a government foolishly lacking a commitment to an independent foreign policy would believe that.
Mr Downer's allegation that Kim Beazley and his predecessors snipe at the US at every opportunity is another of his blatant falsehoods.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
(From: the forum@theaustralian.com.au)

Political animal blog · Guest

Blogs â€“ from Political Animal.

www.polanimal.it.net.au (Theatre of war).

Search for: political animal

DrShrink wrote:
Interesting new article on Australias relations and dealings with Japan before WW2.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,18938957-7583,00.html

I'm not going to criticise Doc, but..... 'Australias relations and dealings with Japan before WW2.' , what does this mean, does it mean pre-Pearl Harbour?

Don't worry I'm on a mission here Doc lad..

From the opening lines of the article it states
Quote:
Bob Wurth: A hero or appeaser?
New documents highlight John Curtin's close association with the fascist Japanese envoy on the eve of Pearl Harbor - how will history judge the Labor prime minister's record

Fascist, Japan was Fascist, not just a sympathetic Nationalist country to the Axis aims ...

The whole thing is wrapped in ambiguity, and thats ambiguity has evolved over the years to the present day... tut tut.

From what I've read from the review, it certainly has echoes of an immediate post Dunkirk 1940 British Empire, when Lord Halifax advocated making a peace with the Nazis.. I have a suspicion that John Curtin was also of this train of thought, as a Realist rather than an appeaser.

Thank fcuk for Churchill eh?, despite his ill judged deeds and past misdemeanours...
DrShrink
Prime Minister

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 3125
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: Theater of war

[King] O'Malley wrote:
DrShrink wrote:
Interesting new article on Australias relations and dealings with Japan before WW2.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,18938957-7583,00.html

I'm not going to criticise Doc, but..... 'Australias relations and dealings with Japan before WW2.' , what does this mean, does it mean pre-Pearl Harbour?

I do not know any more details than the article provides, which is that in April 1941, 8 months before Perl Harbour, Curtin as Prime Minister offered a trade deal to the Japanese if they would guarantee Australias security.

Curtin knew this wasnt a true gaurantee, as the article states that 2 months before he made the offer he had told the Australian War council (of which he was a key member of the bipartisan executive war stratergy) that if and when the situation favoured, "Japan would make war against Australia tomorrow".

But it sounds like a real effort to try and entice Japan to look back towards China or Russia, instead of south to the Pacific. I am not sure how worthwhile such a deal would have been, nor how liklely Curtin though it might do us any good, but it sounds a reasonable effort in a time of confusion and concern that we attempt what little we can to prevent a second conflict (as we were already at war with Germany) and prevent a fight with Japan, the one nation who had the capacity to invade Australia.

Im now keen to pick up the book, Curtins time during WW2 is an intriguing study of the contientious left wing man as defender of a nation. The struggle and worry over the war certainly killed him, but whilst a pacifict in WW1, he was no weaklin in WW2 and responsible in large part for both the Australian war effort (even when opposition elader he took the lead in calling for an increase in our readyness) and then the startergy we undertook, includding the historic move from risking all with the British to asking the Americans to make Australia their focus and defend us in times of peril.

If this deal was a failed cunning effort, a miss step or really was appeasement i do not yet have an opinion.
Quote:

Don't worry I'm on a mission here Doc lad..

From the opening lines of the article it states
Quote:
Bob Wurth: A hero or appeaser?
New documents highlight John Curtin's close association with the fascist Japanese envoy on the eve of Pearl Harbor - how will history judge the Labor prime minister's record

Fascist, Japan was Fascist, not just a sympathetic Nationalist country to the Axis aims ...

True, but it wasnt one viewed as expansionist in the way Germany was. Certainly not commonly viewed in a way that would threaten Australia. Curtin would have had the best of Australia and possibly the USA's intelligence on Japan, but clearly he thought there was a chance Japan would stay out of the war, stay out of the pacific at least and in return he would both trade with them(earning this country a useful penny) and get some symbolic guarantee.

Quote:

The whole thing is wrapped in ambiguity, and thats ambiguity has evolved over the years to the present day... tut tut.

From what I've read from the review, it certainly has echoes of an immediate post Dunkirk 1940 British Empire, when Lord Halifax advocated making a peace with the Nazis.. I have a suspicion that John Curtin was also of this train of thought, as a Realist rather than an appeaser.

Thank fcuk for Churchill eh?, despite his ill judged deeds and past misdemeanours...

Well quite. I dont think appeasement of Japan and the Nazis is on the same level (if only because the japanese power was so much less and their intentions that much murkier), but it does seem true that this country, both Menzies and Curtin thought they could buy off, hold off or yes apepase the Japanese rather than fight them in a war.

History hasnt judged them as it did Chamberlin, history knows the burden of a minow nation like Australia, and when the time came we did take up the fight and were quite prepared to stand up our nation.

But this evidence (and i hadnt heard of any trade offerings by Curtin before) does shed some new light and perhaps take a touch of shine off the reputation of Curtin.

Still, a fine man regardless. But this is the fun of history, new evidence allowing careful evaluation and re-evaluation of figures all with blessed 20-20 hingsight of their choices.
_________________
'To him who looks at the world rationally the world looks rationally back' - Hegel

DrShrink wrote:

But this evidence (and i hadnt heard of any trade offerings by Curtin before) does shed some new light and perhaps take a touch of shine off the reputation of Curtin.

Still, a fine man regardless. But this is the fun of history, new evidence allowing careful evaluation and re-evaluation of figures all with blessed 20-20 hingsight of their choices.

I have to say I'm impressed Doc, not at your depth of knowledge, but your understanding of history, as it is presented.

Rodney King
Voter

Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

Si wrote:
From that article, his actions seem perfectly reasonable. Knowing that Australia wouldn't have a chance alone in a war against Japan, he sought to broker peace and protection for his country. And did a very good job of it. But then when it became apparent that there was no reasoning with the monster of Japan, he changed tack without a thought.

Exactly, he did what would be expected of a leader. The Australian did the article a disservice with the false dilemma headline ("Hero or appeaser?"). It is possible to be both, at the same time. As Dr Shrink notes, the word 'appeaser' has unfortunate connotations (think Neville Chamberlain). I don't see much opportunity for partisan point-scoring, though, considering Menzies is referred to as "the worst appeaser of all".

Mr Wurth will be happy -- great publicity for the book.

Location: My computer
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:19 am Post subject:

Rodney King wrote:
As Dr Shrink notes, the word 'appeaser' has unfortunate connotations (think Neville Chamberlain).

This is an important point.

Prior to WW2 appeasement had been known to often work, it was a respectable tool in the diplomatic arsenal, one used between the European powers since the fall of Napoleon. It worked well in the great game of colonial politics, â€œyou take this, and I will have that.â€

It was the breakdown of such international quid pro quo that saw events spiral out of control and a aggressive and resentful Germany head for all out war in WW1. (And make no mistake about it, Germany was determined to have war in WW1, this was no misunderstanding triggered by the assassination of Ferdinand, that was simply a pretext.)

Chamberlain was simply attempting to avoid WW1.

Unfortunately he was dealing with a different reality, it was a naive policy in the face of the new ideological realities posed by Hitler, and a disgrace when it came to betraying Czechoslovakia.

As to Curtain, I can see no fault. As Shink points out, small powers must survive any way they can.

Play both ends of the middle if need be.

It must have been clear to him Britain was preoccupied with Europe and would not, or could not, defend the Pacific Empire, and it would have been unclear with an isolationist US Congress (though not Whitehouse) and continuing attempts by the US to solve itâ€™s conflict with Japan diplomatically, wether the US would ever be involved in a Pacific war.

So Curtain reveals himself to be an astute pragmatist, looking out for Australia.

Cynik, as your post seemed to be a lighthearted romp, chemically induced I would suspect, so I cannot be too harsh.

I would like to point out however you got it backwards, the US hardly encouraged the Japanese to attack China, (I am still astounded you claimed to have a history degree) in fact that was the cause of the entire conflict between the US and Japan, the US never wavered from itâ€™s demands China be left sovereign. The US had a long-standing history of opposing colonisation of China, even preventing the European powers from carving her up completely.

This was the source of the Japanese-US grievance, the cause of the US sanctions, and eventually the Japanese response at Pearl Harbour.
_________________

Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 818
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

JW Frogen wrote:
Rodney King wrote:
As Dr Shrink notes, the word 'appeaser' has unfortunate connotations (think Neville Chamberlain).

This is an important point.

Prior to WW2 appeasement had been known to often work, it was a respectable tool in the diplomatic arsenal, one used between the European powers since the fall of Napoleon. It worked well in the great game of colonial politics, â€œyou take this, and I will have that.â€

It was the breakdown of such international quid pro quo that saw events spiral out of control and a aggressive and resentful Germany head for all out war in WW1. (And make no mistake about it, Germany was determined to have war in WW1, this was no misunderstanding triggered by the assassination of Ferdinand, that was simply a pretext.)

Chamberlain was simply attempting to avoid WW1.

Unfortunately he was dealing with a different reality, it was a naive policy in the face of the new ideological realities posed by Hitler, and a disgrace when it came to betraying Czechoslovakia.

See this annoys me Fwoggy, your aportioning blame, because Chamberlain in 1938 utilised concession as a political tool, and you are also then calling Curtin a realist for acting in exactly the same way, you even attempt to bend history to fit your story, a history you barely know outside of your elementary school text book, tut tut grasshopper.

Now there were more than just Chamberlain involved in the appeasement/pacification of an angry Germany was'nt there?, and many more than Chamberlain were overjoyed to have secured 'the peace in our time' Munich agreement, was'nt there ? Now lets just forget Churchill for the moment and his apparently perfect foresight, and remember hardly one conservative politician of any real note trusted Churchills judgement in the 1930's , especially not the British public.

Lets look at the 'appeasement'...... There were few shouts of opposition when Germany marched into Austria, and those few shouts of opposition came from communists and Jews, Churchill may have squeaked but no-one of any consequence was listening.

There were actually many prominent politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who were sympathetic to the Germans post 'Versailles' plight, there were many admirers of the Germans national socialist policies, especially its anti-communist stance, there were many that helped finance the German not so secret war machine was'nt there?, so what did the Munich agreement agree to ?, did Britain and France agree not to defend the Sudetenland, a former part of Germany, with a majority ethnic German population, from German re-absorbtion?

Now I am not saying Chamberlain or Daladier were fascist or Nazi sympathisers or that were political cowards, I am saying that at that very moment in time, they were working for the good, working to maintain a pan European peace and address some of the injustices which 'Versailles' had caused to Germany. They were realists. So they too began re-arming just in case the shadow of war was again cast over Europe.

The Paris treaty was in tatters on the floor after Germany absorbed Austria. France knew no-one was going to help enforce the treaty.
Italy was alligned with Germany, Japan was sympathetic to the Germans, the USA was happy to see the Nazis stamping out the anti-capitalist communist, and Britain did not want another generation of young men slaughtered on the fields of mainland Europe.

That was the reality. A treaty in tatters, a treaty that the USA failed to ratify. So how much impetus do you think that added to Nazi ambition, with them knowing that Britain was still coming to terms with her WWI losses and did not want another war, and a France which was relying solely on the backup of its weak neighbours, and on the British empire and commonwealth and on the not so isolationist USA to enforce the LoN treaty?

There was no political will from any quarters to enforce the treaty , no one was going to defend it, that was the reality and the Germans knew it, and I know it, and so should you. But instead you'll call Chamberlain an 'appeaser' like its a dirty word.

Curtin was an astute politician, he'd seen Europe over-run by the Nazis, he'd seen what happened to the BEF, he'd seen the USA abandon France and yet ignore another mutual aid treaty, he knew the fight was in Europe. In 1939/1940 the British Asian empire and Australia was under no percieved immediate threat from the Japanese, so I fail to see how Curtin was appeasing Japan. The Americans had little influence at that time in Asia, the British did,it had a bloody empire, the Japanese did, they are Asian. And ps Britain ruled the f'kin waves.

The only thing Curtin should show for his actions, is a red face, and so should Chamberlain... there should be no guilt laid at their doors.

If you want to play the guilt game, lets talk about what Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman allowed to happen to post-war Poland, how Britain and the USA betrayed them at Potsdam, all to appease the USSR. Now its the UK and US who were the real appeasers of WWII eh?, while everything else is just American popular myth, innit?

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 3125
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:14 am Post subject:

Well at least PA has managed a better effort than this shambolic ramble in The Australian.

Its odd how The Australian manages to print serious and interesting historical or cultural articles such as Wurths which began this thread, and then a couple of days later publish in the same space gutter conservative spittle based on some rant a lawyer sent them.

The abover linked piece for example accuses curtin of acting in a way to keep the US out of the war, (and hence would have been responsible for a nazi victory over england), of not forwarning the world about japans threats, and thus cost us "Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Singapore, The Philippines and the Dutch East Indies", of supporting nazism, of not caring about the result, but only of building a trade union movement, of treason & betrayal of his country and much more.

History can be and sometimes is at its best when partisan, but to publish illoigical trash like this piece by Hal G.P. Colebatch, defies good sense on the editors behalf.

The Australian likes to hold itself up as the nations serious paper, and for that reason I do read it regularly. But its ugly underbelly is that it is the smallest read broadsheet in the country(it sells about half that of the Fairfax establishment & 1/4 the tabloids), and all too often a shrill conservative rag which is interested in politics (unlike Fairfax) and occasionally lucks onto a good journalist or freelance writer.
_________________
'To him who looks at the world rationally the world looks rationally back' - Hegel

Comments from Political Animal: www.polanimal.it.net.au (Theatre of war.)

AJ · Guest

It's funny to read the comments from Lavaratus Prodeo who not only accused Bob Wurth of being some random, unknown journalistic interloper but also a right wing extremist.

If Mr Prodeo read one of Bob's book published about 20 years ago on Fr Brian Gore in the Phillipines, he would relaise 3 things:

1- 20 years ago Bob wasn't a communist
2- today he isn't a fascist
3 -he has been contributing to intelligent, researched dilaogue on Australia and south east asia for decades.

who are you Larvatus Prodeo?

Fremantlebiz.livejournal · Guest

The second article in The Australian is closer to home. It relates to a new book, Saving Australia: Curtin's Secret Peace with Japan, by Bob Wurth. The article is also online and is titled, "Bob Wurth: A hero or appeaser?"

It relates to events before I was born, but the political echoes are still with us. Mr Wurth writes, "I reveal documents from Japan showing that Curtin secretly negotiated an agreement in pre-war 1941 to support Japanese access to West Australian iron ore in return for a safety from attack." Wow! This is an eye opener.

Now 1941 one was a pretty important year. It was the one when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, forced the USA to enter WW2. 7 December 1941 to be precise. But a few weeks earlier on November 19, the pride of the Royal Australian Navy, HMAS Sydney, II was sunk by a disguised German raider HSK Kormoran off the north western Australian coast, with the loss of all 645 crew. It was the RAN's greatest disaster, and is still shrouded in mystery.

There have been theories that Japan was somehow involved in the sinking, but they have never been proven. Nor has the location of the wreck been identified. Kormoran sank in the sea battle too, and the German survivor's' accounts have conveniently shaped the official Australian version of events - amidst raging controversy.

Mr Curtin was Prime Minister at the time and somewhere in the archival records there is an account of his reaction when he was told the news that Sydney had gone. It was along the lines of his burying his head in his hands and crying in anguish, "What have I done?" This was never satisfactorily explained.

The Australian PM had a reputation for going on a bender at times of stress, and this tends to also be glossed over.

Mr Curtin also had an infatuation with the Japanese and was seduced in a sense by Japan's Minister in Australia, Tatsuo Kawai, to the extent he was a respected guest during 1941 in the Curtin family's home at Cottesloe, near Fremantle. As late as the 11th November that year, just eight days before the loss of Sydney, Mr Kawai was one of Mr Curtin's guests of honour at the opening of the Canberra War Memorial. A supreme irony indeed.

There is an official Australian government biography of Mr Curtin. Read it with an open mind.

The assertions in Mr Wurth's book are probably going to cause a furore, especially in Labor circles. In his research he has gone to Japanese sources for information. I suspect the credibility of the Australian PM is going to suffer substantially.

A question which comes to my mind about Mr Curtin was did at some time in his chumminess with with Mr Kawai, did he say something which unwittingly jeopardised HMAS Sydney? At that time the Japanese and the Germans were very close to eachother. Could his loose lips have sunk ships? It's just a thought.

Last year on 15 August 2005 I wrote about a controversial statue of Mr Curtin which was unveiled in Fremantle. The controversy over that continues. The statue is grotesque and scary. Perhaps the book Saving Australia: Curtin's Secret Peace with Japan is going to reveal that the man was even scarier than the Australian public ever dreamed?

Now there is one final matter which has attracted my attention. I wasn't going to mention Private Kovco again, but I have just heard that the wrong body was sent back to Australia. The news tends to take my breath away.

Â© MMVI Paul R. Weaver.

From www.fremantlebiz.livejournal.com

Aussie Bob · Guest

From 'the road to surfdom' blog:

Downerâ€™s idea of combatting evil is to pick a weak country and invade it based on lies, and then to claim they were fighting evil all the time. If the Australian people were so in tune with Liberal Party thinking - their â€œcourage to combat evilâ€ - why did Downer think they couldnâ€™t be told the truth?

â€œSaddam is a bad man. We have to wipe him out because heâ€™s bad.â€

No, instead they trumped up the WMD bullshit. Of course, once the invasion part of the war was over with no casualties, the wowsers out there in Battler Land decided the â€œsomebody had to do somethingâ€ about Saddam. All nice and safe by then, naturally. Or so they thought. A nice â€œsymbolicâ€ confrontation with evil, as Sheehan would put it. No deaths, and we get to keep up the wheat trade. Well, maybe not quite so, on both countsâ€¦

Downerâ€™s article seeks to - at one blow - completely destroy Laborâ€™s credibility on matters of national security. Heâ€™s quite explicit about it, just in case no one twigged to the build-up in The Australian (and Hendo in the SMH) over the past week.

And they have the hide to demand that Beazley apologizes for criticising the governmentâ€™s IR regime?

This just reconfirms, in my mind, that Downer is by far the biggest nancy boy in the government. To think that someone with his responsibility for national affairs could so egregiously attempt to not just tweak, but completely re-write and reverse history, while accusing the Left of wearing â€œblack arm bandsâ€ with respect to that same history is almost too much to bear at one sitting. Especially as the article he cites, by Wurth, actually ranked Curtin as the least appeasement-minded of all political leaders of the time, including â€œPig Ironâ€ Bob Menzies. Thatâ€™s the bit that rankles.

Thereâ€™s steam pouring out my ears right now.

www.roadtosurfdom.com

Administrator · Guest

War and Peace

By David O'Sullivan. Posted: Friday, May 19 2006 .

Dispensing the friendship: Bob Wurth

Bob Wurth is passionate, and why wouldn't he be. Five years after stumbling over an obscure reference in a biography of wartime prime minister John Curtin, Wurth has produced Saving Australia, which tells the fascinating and poignant story of Curtin's friendship with the first Japanese minister Tatsuo Kawai prior to, during and after World War II.

While some people, like Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer, have pointed to the book as evidence of Curtin's appeasement, Wurth doesn't see it that way.

At last night's Brisbane launch of the book, in the hallowed surroundings of General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters, Wurth, a former ABC correspondent, said the story underscored the wisdom of being able to change position, as Curtin did, from appeaser to warrior.

There are also a number of threads which add to the richness to this story, including Kawai harbouring the war criminal Colonel Masanobu Tsuji, the American woman of Japanese descent who became Kawai's private secretary, Tamaye Tsutsumida, who chose to go to Japan with Kawai rather than return to her family in the US, and his son Masumi Kawai becoming managing director of Mitsui Australia which developed vast iron ore mines in Western Australia.

While some of today's leaders may use this book to score political points, Bob Wurth clearly sees a more fundamental value in this story which he says is as much about peace as it is about war. At its heart though, one senses that the important message here is about the nature of friendship, and that surely is to be applauded.

David O'Sullivan. Articulate, ABC News Online.

power of attorney · Guest

truck stops · Guest

trucking job · Guest

Bubli · Guest

Fioricet Online · Guest

Buy hydrocodone · Guest

Bingo Go! · Guest

soccer-betting · Guest