From: Steve Gower
Date: 22 December 2005 9:55:40 AM
To: James Bowen
Subject:
Japan's plans for Australia in 1942
Thank you for your e-mail of 19 December in which you seemingly contest the right of the Memorial's Principal Historian to disagree with the Battle for Australia committees' understanding of Japanese intentions toward Australia in 1942.
I though it might be helpful to summarise Dr Stanley's views for you. In essence, he does not deny the existence of a Japanese threat to Australia, or the importance of its perception at the time, and indeed subsequently. His major difference with you appears to be in arguing that there was no Japanese plan to invade Australia in 1942. This is not a novel view by any means and is very well-documented. I feel it hardly justifies your description of it as 'revisionist'. Emphasis added.
The difficulty I have with your correspondence is that you use the term 'revisionist' as if it were a dubious or even reprehensible thing for an historian to propose interpretations of history which differ from your own. We do fortunately live in a society in which scholars are free to propose and defend views which may be unfashionable or challenging. Dr Stanley's views are in fact not so divergent from those of many historians that he should be singled out. Indeed, I suggest that is indeed quite possible that your expressed interpretation is novel and needs to be underpinned by further scholarship.
It is both inaccurate and unfair to imply that anyone who questions your particular view of 1942 must necessarily denigrate the sacrifices made by Allied service men and women in those campaigns. Dr Stanley has repeatedly made the point that those who died fighting Japanese aggression died in a noble cause and he has never suggested or implied that their deaths were unworthy or unjustified. It is a disappointing red herring to impute this.
You mention that you will take your case to the Prime Minister. I am unclear as to what you seek to achieve by this. I have every confidence that he and the Leader of the Opposition (whose name you also mention) would find nothing unusual in a diversity of interpretation.
While I may not agree in all respects with Dr Stanley's views or how he may have expressed them, I am disappointed with apparent attempt to censure an historian with whom you disagree.
Steve Gower
RETURN TO:
OR