Everyone else is linking to this article in the Manawatu Standard about the first Labour government and their policy regarding war with Germany in the late 30s. The Standard are obviously upset about the allegations, DPF’s response is pretty much what we’ve come to expect. (If you could somehow harness the stupidity in that comments section our energy problems would be over.)
The article itself is a bit vague about the details, and Dr Watson from Massey wonders if the information has not come to light because of ‘an historical bias towards Labour’ which instantly triggers my wingnut detector, but the basic allegations don’t seem that surprising. Hitler was not the monster of the century before war broke out, many Labour politicians were pacifists – World War One had happened in their lifetimes and they would not have been delighted at the prospect of another pointless European slaughter. From our perspective we see things differently but at the time avoiding another rerun of WWI was definitely the most prudent policy.
“…which instantly triggers my wingnut detector…”
My first thought was that Joel Hayward didn’t spring fully armed from the head of Nike…
Comment by Tom Semmens — July 10, 2009 @ 9:06 am
From our perspective we see things differently
I’ve always condsidered this to be a good reason for taking a more lenient stance on the “I was just following orders” concentration camp guards.
Comment by Phil (not Goff) — July 10, 2009 @ 10:02 am
It seems entirely plausible and inoffensive to me too. A lot of people in the late 30s were pushing closer ties with Germany, a country with a totalitarian dictatorship but also very economic high growth (sound familiar, free-trade-deal-with-China enthusiasts?)
Watson’s found various Labour cabinet ministers were dubious about getting NZ into another world war – it’s interesting history, but not much use for political propaganda a la DPF. It only looks odd to us with hindsight, and it only looks like “NZ” appeasing Hitler to DPF and the sad loonies who comment there, who are all presumably ignorant of the fact the Labour govt agreed with Britain re declaring war on 3 Sept 39.
Re the Standard’s outrage (“Fascism was anathema to socialism”!), I guess those guys prefer to dwell on heroic Red Army victories post-1942 rather than Molotov and Ribbentrop signing pieces of paper in 1939, but the papers were nevertheless signed, and a lot of socialists dropped their opposition to Hitler in response.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 10, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Contrary to the impressions of a good many people NZ’s standard of living was and will always be tied to our ability to export.. and still in the grip of the Great Depression, it would have almost criminal to have excluded Germany as an export destination.
If most here had been adults at the time we’d have been right behind an export drive and not too concerned with Jews and other shifty foreign types in Europe.
Since then NZ has indeed traded with a lot of shifty foreign types.. its called survival and “National Interest” because we don’t have the big population and industry to trade profitably amongst ourselves.
The article is an interesting historical footnote of a totally expected policy of the time and thats about all. Getting hot and bothered about the doings of our trading partners is a relatively modern phenomena.
JC
Comment by JC — July 10, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Following WW1 there was a massive pacifist movement in Europe, for very good reason. And as you point out, Hitler was not known as the monster he is now. This can only be a story for those who suffer historical ignorance.
Comment by Michael Stevens — July 10, 2009 @ 11:12 am
I think DPF is right to call out the contrast between Labour’s historical dealing with the National Socialist government of Germany and National’s dealings with the Apartheid government of South Africa. National’s rigorous philosophical analysis so brilliantly conveyed to NZ’s population gave them the popular support they needed for sanctions… oh, ooops, I mean the prolonged dog-whistling campaign that led to the rise of the Red Squad and the close ties with a bunch of racist thugs.
Comment by Moz — July 10, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
as a critique of “the Left” this is a bit lame. As Churchill and Rosevelt experienced there was quite a bit of Right-wing resistance to standing up to Hitler.
but there is somethng about spending too long negotiating that I think is a characterstic of elements of the Left. Left-wing ideolgy has it that an evil nature is the result of (bad) experience. And so to confront evil is always to address supposed past injustices. And meanwhile the evil people go about their business.
not that right-wingers don’t have their own problems but there’s some on the Left that are quiet naive and get caught up fighting “capitalism”, “imperialism’ etc and not the far greater enemies of liberal values out there.
Comment by Neil — July 10, 2009 @ 9:08 pm