HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3

DropBear bigfella... 10/28/2005 11:30:09 PM

I thought you said this was a silly thread? Perhaps you've given up trying to get any sense out of that science/religion thread on the USA board? Shotguns at twenty paces! ;)

Quote Reply

AussieEngineer RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 7:00:22 AM

The reason I believe he may have seen the threat to Australia earlier is for a few reasons. First, since getting into government he has put placed more importance on defence in general. Second, JH has an entirely different view on what Australia is as a country than Menzies. Menzies may have seen Australia as still part of Britain, but JH most definately does not. Although you might say Howard would have been the same as Menzies if he had been born way back when it is impossible to say what sort of man he would have been. We can only use how he has acted in government today as a guide.

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 2002-2005-Menzies P.M. Now 10/29/2005 7:47:35 AM

Reverse it and bring it into today. What would Menzies be in a modern political climate?

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 8:26:37 AM

"First, since getting into government he has put placed more importance on defence in general." - AE Since becoming PM or since East Timor or 9-11? I don't think he was doing any more than the last few governments before necessity dictated a change of policy. "it is impossible to say what sort of man he would have been. We can only use how he has acted in government today as a guide." - AE That is sort of why this thread doesn't really work. Since every Australian who is sentient is aware that Japan threatened us in 1942 then every one of them (with the possible exception of Dana Vale) would see the threat earlier than menzies did. If you want to make this anything more than an exercise in time travel (and John Birmingham has beaten us to that) the we have to try to imagine what he would have done in the context of the day. You might just as well say that with his airforce of F-111s & F-18s, navy of frigates & Collins subs & our new M1A1 tanks we would devastate the Japanese military & win the war. That is pretty much the same as just transposing him directly, it makes as much sense.

Quote Reply

AussieEngineer RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 9:24:05 AM

If you want to make this anything more than an exercise in time travel (and John Birmingham has beaten us to that) the we have to try to imagine what he would have done in the context of the day. Thats why we have to use what he has actually done as a guide. Compare the difference in thinking toward the WOT of our government to that of NZ. It could be argued that the threat posed by terrorism is similar in many ways to threat posed by Japan, in the way it can be seen.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 10:46:09 AM

right...we haven't even had a terrorist attack here in Oz (and hopefully never!) and your comparing the WOT to fighting the Japs in World War Two...sorry AE, no comprendo...

Quote Reply

AussieEngineer RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 7:06:20 PM

They are/were both latent threats. Some people like to put their head in the sand with the terrorism just like they were doing with Japan before they decided to take off half the pacific. Howard unlike others has decided to take the threat seriously, I can only assume he would have done the same for Japan in 1941. That and I believe he would be more conscious of Australia's independence than either Menzies or Curtain.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:HYPOTHETICAL: 1939 - 1945, John Howard wartime PM 10/29/2005 11:41:11 PM

"They are/were both latent threats. Some people like to put their head in the sand with the terrorism just like they were doing with Japan before they decided to take off half the pacific." I don't recall John Howard having any more insight into the issue before 9/11 than anyone else. Did I miss something? "Howard unlike others has decided to take the threat seriously, I can only assume he would have done the same for Japan in 1941. That and I believe he would be more conscious of Australia's independence than either Menzies or Curtain." Again, am I missing something. Are there political equivalents of menzies & Curin at the moment who are not taking the threat seriously? As for maintaining Australia's independence better than Menzies or Curtain, again you are taking someone out of a modern context where everyone in Australian politics is more independent into a 1930s/40s context where that was much less the case, especially on the conservative side of the house. lets not forget the 'deputy sheriff' remark and the determination to commit troops to Iraq. I would argue that Howard is, in the context of modern Australian poliics, less inclined to independence than many others would be. He probably couldn't have done a worse job than the Menzies/Lyons UAP did from 1933-41. They spent very little on defence, trusting instead to mother England. Even after 1939 there were questions about the effectiveness of the broader response to the war - mobilizing industry etc. When the war began not only did menzies send virtually all our military assets to Nth Africa, but he spent the first half of 1941 in England. He firmly believed that the only way to defend Australia was to defend the Empire, and was prepared (with the help of rebel Tory MPs) to try to unseat Churchill. meanwhile the real threat had occupied Indochina the year before. The issue with labor is very different, and I don't honestly see that any conservative politician of that time (and JH would have been one, no matter how much you might want to give him the insights of 2005) would have responded better. For much of the 1930s the ALP was opposed to the deplyoment of Australian troops in distant conflicts, as had been the case in WW1. There were some who urged the party to take a more active stance in opposing Fascism, and as the 30s went on they became more influential. The ALP was committed to defending Australia, and actually pushed for greater defence spending, especially on the RAAF. It is impossible to know what the ALP would have done in Menzies position, as they came to power only a few weeks before Pearl Harbour. I am prepared to bet, however, that more Australian assets would have been closer to home. Curtin also had the courage to break with 150 years of Australian history and turn to America in our time of need. Might JH have done as well? I doubt it, but it is possible. Could he have done better than Curtin? not a chance.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3