JAMES BOWEN CALLS ON THE AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL TO CONFRONT ITS 1942 ERRORS
"It
seems to be that Australians want to believe that they were part of a war, that
the war came close;
that it mattered....Set against the prosaic reality, the desire is poignant
and rather pathetic."
Dr Peter Stanley, Principal Historian, Australian War Memorial, is speaking
about the Japanese attack on Australia in 1942. From his 2005 paper "Threat
made manifest".
"John
Curtin, Australia's prime minister since October 1941, warned the Australian
people that "the fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia". "Battle
for Australia" committees have recently appropriated this phrase, seeking to
redefine Australia's war around the idea of a deliverance from a Japanese
threat."
Emphasis
added.
Dr Stanley rejects the traditional view that Australia's war in 1942 involved
"deliverance from a Japanese threat". From "Threat
made manifest".
"Dr
Stanley has legitimate arguments in my opinion."
Major General Steve Gower, AO, Director,
Australian War Memorial, email dated 8 November 2005.
The Author of "The Battle for Australia 1942-43" - James Bowen
James Bowen is a published author with a career that has included service as a senior Crown prosecutor, an army officer, a senior public servant, and public policy consultant to national bodies such as the RSL. He graduated in politics, Far Eastern history, and law from the University of Queensland. His special interest now is Pacific War history.
Introduction
In the preceding chapters, I explained how I had formed the view that Dr Peter Stanley of the Australian War Memorial had erred in denying the gravity of the peril faced by Australia in 1942 from Japanese military aggression and in accusing Prime Minister John Curtin of exaggerating Australia's danger for political advantage. I referred to the main authority cited by Dr Stanley in support of his revisionist views about Australia's strategic situation in 1942, the distinguished Japanese history scholar Professor Henry Frei. I demonstrated by references to text that Professor Frei totally contradicted Dr Stanley. Based upon my own familiarity with Professor Frei's research, and the work of other distinguished Japan scholars, it appeared very clear to me that Dr Stanley had either misread or misunderstood Professor Frei's research on this subject as set out in Japan's Southward Advance and Australia. I pointed out that if Dr Stanley had significantly underestimated the degree of peril that Australia faced in 1942, and that is my firm contention, then this error undermined the foundation for his criticism of the leadership and character of Prime Minister John Curtin and his criticism of Australians who believe that their country faced a grave threat from Japanese aggression in 1942 as being "rather pathetic". See quotation above.
The Prime Minister and Leader of the Federal Opposition make Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism an issue for public debate
This issue became a matter of broad public interest when it was reported by the Melbourne Herald Sun (8 September 2005) that the Prime Minister, the Honourable John Howard, MP,and the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Honourable Kim Beazley, MP, had rejected Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism at this year's commemoration of the Battle for Australia. Mr Beazley is reported as having described Dr Stanley's revisionist views as "offensive and wrong". In an email dated 28 October 2005 to the director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Gower, I mentioned the reported criticism of Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I also mentioned that I had studied the history of the Far East at university, and had made a special study of the Pacific War as co-founder of the national Battle for Australia Commemoration. I offered to send Major General Gower my reasons for concluding that the Prime Minister and Mr Beazley were justified in rejecting Dr Stanley's revisionist views of 1942. In his emailed response dated 8 November 2005, Major General Gower did not accept my offer to explain where Dr Stanley had fallen into error. He did not address the reported criticism of Dr Stanley's revisionism by Australia's political leaders, saying only, "Dr Stanley has legitimate arguments in my opinion." This response from the director, and the presence of a sign reflecting Dr Stanley's revisionist views in the Memorial's World War II gallery almost two months after the reported rejection of those views by Australia's political leaders, suggests to me that the bureaucracy of the Australian War Memorial intends to ignore the views of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this controversial issue.
The author is forced to respond to bureaucratic intransigence by making public his challenge to Dr Stanley's revisionism
Dodging of issues and obstruction by the bureaucracy become subjects of hilarity in the famous BBC comedy series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister", but for those on the receiving end in real life situations it can be a source of acute frustration. From my own experience of working in the Canberra bureaucracy in the 1970s, I had expected that the bureaucracy of the Australian War Memorial would either close ranks to protect Dr Stanley, who is one of its own, or promise to look into the matters that had been raised by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, and me. The second approach was common bureaucratic practice in my time. It would envisage that the lengthy delay produced by bureaucratic paper shuffling would eventually cause the interest of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to be distracted by affairs of state. Major General Gower appears to have elected to "close ranks" by declaring his unqualified support for Dr Stanley (see quotation above), and ignoring the substance of my challenge to the accuracy of Dr Stanley's revisionist views about 1942. If, as I suspect, this was a bureaucratic ploy undertaken with the expectation that I would back off, then it has backfired because Major General Gower has failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that I am a co-founder of the Battle for Australia Commemoration. I have personally spent thousands of hours researching and writing the history of the Battle for Australia 1942-43 that appears on this web-site. This history is intended to assist young Australians to appreciate the sacrifices that justify commemoration of the Battle for Australia. Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism directly challenges the rationale for that commemoration. By refusing to consider my arguments or acknowledge the reported rejection of Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism by Australia's political leaders, the director has forced me to publish on this web-site my detailed arguments challenging the correctness of Dr Stanley's controversial views about 1942 and Prime Minister Curtin.
I informed Major General Gower by email on 19 December 2005 that I had placed a detailed rebuttal of Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism on the Battle for Australia Historical Society web-site. I have attached a copy of this email because it attracted what I regard as an extraordinary emailed reply from Major General Gower on 22 December 2005.
The Australian War Memorial elects to "shoot the messenger" rather than address embarrassing issues frankly
To enable viewers to make their own evaluation of the points that I am about to make, I have attached Major General Gower's emailed reply to my email dated 19 December 2005. My own experience as a member of the Canberra bureaucracy in the 1970s taught me that it is common bureaucratic practice to evade embarrassing criticism (especially when it originates from outside the bureaucracy) by ignoring it and then turn the focus back on the critic by challenging his/her motives or credentials to criticise. I suspect that Major General Gower may be following this time-honoured bureaucratic ploy when he ignores both the substance of my challenge to the correctness of Dr Stanley's 1942 revisionism and the criticism from Australia's political leaders, and then turns the focus back on me by suggesting that I am seeking to deny "the right" of Dr Stanley to hold and publish "unfashionable or challenging" views as an employee of the Australian War Memorial. Those viewers who have read my email and compared it with Major General Gower's reply of 22 December 2005 will hopefully see that the director is clearly wrong about this. I have never challenged Dr Stanley's right to make controversial statements about 1942 and Prime Minister Curtin. What I have done is challenge the correctness of Dr Stanley's controversial views on these subjects, the depth and accuracy of his research, and the propriety of associating his revisionist views with the Australian War Memorial. I am particularly concerned about the Australian War Memorial being used as a platform to express highly controversial and strongly disputed views about our war history. I find it difficult to understand how Major General Gower can fail to appreciate this distinction.
The Australian War Memorial ignores arguments that prove Dr Stanley is wrong about 1942 and Prime Minister Curtin
As to evading an embarrassing issue by ignoring it, I will leave it to viewers to form their own opinions. In his email dated 22 December 2005, Major General Gower makes no attempt to address my detailed arguments (as set out in the preceding chapters of this section) for rejecting as unsound Dr Stanley's very controversial views concerning 1942, and in particular, my submission that Dr Stanley has misread or misunderstood the main authority, namely, Professor Frei, on whose research he purports to base his revisionist theories. Within hours of receiving his email of 22 December 2005, I emailed a detailed response to Major General Gower that addressed and rejected all of his criticisms of me and contained an offer to acknowledge and publish on this Battle for Australia web-site any credible historical evidence that he might choose to send to me and that supports Dr Stanley's revisionist views about 1942, and contradicts my own research and the reported views of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. At 30 January 2006, Major General Gower has still not responded to my offer.
Without citing any supporting authorities, the director suggests in his email that Dr Stanley's views about 1942 are mainstream and that mine are revisionist. Despite the substantial taxpayer-funded resources available to the Australian War Memorial to research controversial issues as important as the ones raised by Dr Stanley and challenged by me, Major General Gower has not responded (at 28 January 2006) to my request to draw to my attention any reputable authority that supports Dr Stanley's controversial views about 1942 and John Curtin. This failure to respond continues despite my undertaking to publish on this web-site any credible historical evidence that contradicts my evidence and supports Dr Stanley's views!
The Australian War Memorial ignores criticism of Dr Stanley's revisionism by Australia's political leaders
In his email dated 22 December 2005, Major General Gower also avoids making any response to my mention that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Federal Opposition are also reported to have criticised and rejected Dr Stanley's revisionist theories about 1942. Based upon my own experience in the Canberra bureaucracy, I am aware that most bureaucrats have a strong instinct for self preservation. They do criticise their political masters, but only within the bureaucracy. Some may think that it would have required a great deal of courage for Major General Gower to respond in writing to my mention of the reported criticism of Dr Stanley's views from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Federal Opposition because such a response from him would logically call for criticism of our political leaders of the kind that the director reserves for me in his email. If this is the explanation for my being singled out by Major General Gower for criticism, and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition being excused, I feel that the director needs to re-examine his position on this issue. If the Herald Sun report is accurate, logic and principle should require Major General Gower to direct at the Prime Minister and Leader of the Federal Opposition criticism of the same kind that he has directed at me in his email of 22 December 2005.
The Australian War Memorial is denying Australians the right to be heard on controversial issues relating to their history
Having completely avoided responding to these important issues that I had raised with him, I am left with the very clear impression from the tenor of the director's email of 22 December 2005 that he feels entitled as a Canberra bureaucrat to reprimand an Australian war veteran, a taxpayer, a chronicler of the history of the Battle for Australia 1942-43, and co-founder of the Battle for Australia Commemoration for daring to question privately with him the correctness of Dr Stanley's very controversial views about Australia's strategic situation in 1942 and the leadership of Prime Minister Curtin. It appears to me that, if I were ever to allow bureaucratic bluster to intimidate me into silence on important matters of principle, the effect would be to place bureaucrats beyond accountability to the Australians whose taxes provide their salaries.
I find it difficult to avoid a conclusion that Major General Gower is prepared to deny the right of any Australian to be heard if they challenge views concerning their war history espoused by the Australia War Memorial, no matter how controversial those views may be, and even if they can be demonstrated to be wrong. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. Australians deserve better from their national War Memorial. I now suggest a means by which Australians can challenge bureaucratic resistance that effectively denies their right to be heard concerning their country's war history.
Australians can support our political leaders in defending the national Battle for Australia Commemoration
Australians who want to honour those who served their country at the time of its greatest danger in the Battle for Australia 1942-43, and those who respect the leadership and integrity of Prime Minister John Curtin at that time, do not need to remain silent when the Battle for Australia Commemoration and the reputation of Prime Minister Curtin are under attack from Australian War Memorial bureaucrats who appear to fail to understand the gravity of the threat from Japanese military aggression in 1942. Those same bureaucrats appear to have ignored the reported criticism directed at their 1942 revisionism by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Federal Opposition at the time of the last Battle for Australia Commemoration on 7 September 2005.
You can support the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and tell them that you object to all or any of the following claims by English-born Dr Peter Stanley of the Australian War Memorial bureaucracy:
(1) that the Japanese were not planning to invade Australia at any time in 1942;
(2) Australia was never in grave peril from Japan in 1942;
(3) the Australian Diggers who blocked and then repelled the determined Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track to Port Moresby did not "save Australia" from invasion* or grave peril;
(4) wartime Prime Minister John Curtin exaggerated the threat from Japan in 1942 for political gain or because he was unable to cope with the stress of office in wartime; and
(5) the apparent need of Australians to believe that they faced a grave danger from Japan in 1942 is "rather pathetic".
Despite being made aware of the reported rebukes to Dr Stanley from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Federal Opposition (Melbourne "Herald Sun", 8 September 2005), the Director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Steve Gower, AO, stated in an email dated 8 November 2005: "Dr Stanley has legitimate arguments in my opinion."
* It appears to have escaped the notice of Dr Stanley and the rest of the Australian War Memorial bureaucracy that the Kokoda Campaign was fought entirely on Australian soil in 1942. Unlike the Territory of New Guinea, Papua was never a League of Nations Mandate. Australia exercised full sovereignty over Papua from 1906 until it achieved independence from Australia in 1975. It follows that the Australian Diggers who threw the Japanese invaders out of the Territory of Papua in January 1943 saved Australia from a Japanese invasion.
You can write to:
The Honourable John Howard, MP
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
or email the Prime Minister at: suzanne.kasprzak@pm.gov.au
You can write to:
The Honourable Kim Beazley, MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
or email Mr Beazley at: kim.beazley.mp@aph.gov.au
It is important to remind the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Federal Opposition of their reported criticism of Dr Stanley's denial of the gravity of the Japanese threat to Australia in 1942. You should mention that the director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Gower, has announced his support for Dr Stanley's controversial views on Australia's strategic situation in 1942 despite being made aware of the reported criticism (see quotes above at the beginning of this chapter). If any specific aspect of Dr Stanley's revisionism (see list above) is of particular concern, you should mention it and ask our political leaders for their help in controlling revisionism by bureaucrats at the Australian War Memorial that has a capacity to undermine the national Battle for Australia Commemoration held in September of each year and damage the reputation of Australia's greatly respected wartime leader, Prime Minister John Curtin.
History teachers are urged to assist any student who may wish to enlist the help of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Federal Opposition in preserving the reputation of Prime Minister Curtin and a national commemoration that honours the sacrifices made by Australians in 1942.
RETURN TO: