There has been quite some discussion on this topic, but completely 'Off Topic' on another thread.
The book "Australia’s Secret War", subtitled 'How Unionists Sabotaged Our Troops in World War II', by Hal G.P. Colebatch has a lot to say on the subject and won the Prime Minister's History Award in 2014.

But did the Communists actually hinder or did they work with the Government to help the war effort?

"But did the Communists actually hinder or did they work with the Government to help the war effort?"

I'll have a guess, Is Mise. They probably hindered the war effort. Commos were not, and are not, noted for their devotion to democracy and, at that time, they were busily trying to undermine Australian democracy for Russia. At the time, they lived and breathed Russia, war or no war.

Is Mise,

I frankly don't know and can't answer your question
regarding what Australian Communists did or did not do
in WWII. However I did find a critique of the book that
you mentioned by Mike Carlton which may be of interest:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/12/09/mike-carlton-the-shoddy-anti-union-fiction-that-won-the-pms-top-history-award/

Thanks Foxy,

Been there, it's an interesting read and Mike Carlton has a deserved reputation as an historian.

It's interesting that SUA, considered to be very Communist, supported the war effort and paid a high price for their patriotism;

"Contrary to popular belief, merchant seamen were not well-paid, did not have comfortable working hours, and their living conditions were often very poor. Industrial action did occur but it did not benefit seamen as much as has been said and was almost always entered into on the basis of pay, extreme danger, or working and living conditions. Figures published by the Seaman’s Union of Australia (SUA) in 1972 indicate that 386 members of the union lost their lives during the Second World War. Given the union’s claim of a total membership of 4,500 at the beginning of the war, the overall fatality rate among seamen members of the SUA during the Second World War was 8.5 per cent, a rate higher than that sustained by Australia’s fighting services."

Source: AWM

Issy, this work of fiction masquerading as fact, has been well and truly exposed as a pathetic attempt by the well known right wing author Hal Colebatch to malign the union movement, nothing new in that. The book is designed to slander Australian workers with its 70 year old, unsubstantiated, anecdotal hearsay. Colebatch's material is untested, and unreliable, coming from sources whose memory and motives are suspect, which makes their personal accounts highly questionable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/stanley-australias-secret-and-unhistorical-war/5960090

Paul,

Agree, it's a pity that Mike Carlton didn't go further in exposing the outright lies in that ill-written book.

The bull about the Vultee Vengeance bombers is worth quoting in full as is the lie about the returning POWs:

"It’s hard to know where to begin on this travesty, but here are two examples. In his introduction, Colebatch claims that a strike by wharf labourers in Sydney kept soldiers returning from Japanese prisoner-of-war camps away from their families. In October 1945, he says, these men were held penned-up on a British aircraft carrier, HMS Speaker, which had brought them home. The wharfies would not allow them ashore to meet their loved ones for 36 hours.

This is untrue. It simply did not happen. Newspaper accounts of their return report the men were greeted by cheering crowds the day they arrived. The history of HMS Speaker, written by one of the ship’s officers and available online, makes no mention of this supposed scandal. There was no wharfies strike that day. Colebatch gives his only source for this nonsense as a letter from one W.S. Monks, dated 1995, 50 years after the event and 20 years ago. He does not reveal who this Monks might be, but there was no soldier or POW of that name in WWII.
The second example is worse, if anything. Colebatch alleges that a flight of 16 American Vultee Vengeance dive bombers returning from a raid on Rabaul crashed into the sea off New Britain because the radar station at their base on Green Island was not working. He claimed — with no evidence at all — that the valves for the radar had been stolen by wharfies.

cont.

"This is sheer fiction. The Americans did not fly the Vultee Vengeance in combat, so they made no raid on Rabaul. Significantly, Colebatch doesn’t give a date, but there is no American record, official or unofficial, of 16 of these aircraft and their 32 crew members lost in this way at any time, as there surely would be had it happened. He also gets the number of the Green Island radar unit wrong. Again, he relies on rumour and hearsay for this nonsense. No official documents, nothing, just two individual reminiscences by old soldiers decades ago."

from Foxy's link.

Now, there's a surprise. Rabid Lefty Carlton tells the truth, and Right wing Colebatch is a liar.

ttbn,

It would seem so, or at the least Colebatch didn't check his facts and when making accusations it's an imperative to check.

The Americans did not fly the Vultee Vengeance in combat they only used it as a target towing plane, any web history of it will say as much.
In Trove there is no newspaper record of the alleged POW incident and this from:
http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/SPEAKER.htm#.Wl9Hr66Waj4

"Hong Kong to Sydney via Manila: September 28th - October 15th
On leaving Okinawa on September 25th SPEAKER steamed for Hong Kong where she was to replenish her severely depleted stores and refuel in preparation for a trooping voyage to Sydney via Mania. She arrived in Hong Kong on the 28th and was ready to sail again on the 30th. Arriving at Manila on October 2nd 556 Australian ex-POWs embarked for repatriation; these men had been recuperating onboard Hospital Ships such as the HMHS Tjitjalengka, sand were a much fitter lot. After some delays in embarking the passengers SPEAKER set sail on October 4th and made best speed for the Australian coast.
... SPEAKER entered Sydney Harbour on October 15th.and berth at No. 14 Pyrmont at 8.45 a.m. Once unloaded the ship moved to a mooring in mid-stream off .Bradley's Head to begin a planned three week period of defect rectification during which time seven days' leave as granted to each watch."

One would think that if there had been a 36 hour hold-up then it might have been given a mention.

I decided to do a bit of research, just to see if I still had the knack.
I found a short piece in TROVE ref. a POW Cpl L.R. (Tod) Lees who disembarked from HMS"SPEAKER" on the 15th October 1945 and was in Gerringong the same night.
This was in the "Kiama Reporter and Illawarra Journal" of the 17th October 1945.
There is no possibility of a 36 hour delay, so if I could find proof, in 5 minutes, that the incident never happened then Colebatch is either careless of the truth or very incompetent.

Hi Issy,

Looking at that period of history, a fair question would be; What would Stalinist's in Australia have to gain by supporting Imperialist Japan? Indeed, how could such support be of assistance to the Soviet Union. In fact the defeat of Japan would only enhance future Communists expansion in China, Korea and South East Asia.
Granted there is historical account of localized incidences of industrial action, which by nature were detrimental to the war effort. I don't question that. What significant effect those strikes had on the overall effort is debatable. They should have never happened, but the way things were done industrially in those days, they were probably unavoidable. What cannot be questioned is the fact the Labor Party under Curtain was totally in support of the war, even the Labor left was on board. no question. So there was no political motive to sabotage the war effort, but there certainly was an industrial motive.

Just on merchant seamen, the worse maritime position in 1942 was unquestionably that of a sailor on a British merchant vessel in the Atlantic. The German U-boats were sinking British convoys by the score, not the navy ships, but the unarmed cargo ships, in many cases with all hands lost.

Issy, the account you give as to the number of deaths of Australian Merchant seamen could be true. I believe many Australian sailors served in the British Merchant Navy. It took the RSL a long time to recognize as full members, those that served on Merchant ships, they were perceived as civilian personnel only and given no special status at the clubs.

One of the RSL's I am a member of, has a plaque which was replaced some years back to read commemorating the service of Australia's Army, Navy, Air Force and Merchant Navy during WWII the words Merchant Navy being added (Yes you better believe it, I am a member of 3 RSL's and at one stage I was a member of 6, Unfortunately 3 have closed down over the years, even going as far as being a board member of one for a couple of terms, trying to save the club. If you are ever in Sydney and want a really good nosh up, the Penrith RSL's Star Buffet is excellent value for both lunch and dinner. At one club I'm a member, on Sunday nights we have the $10 350g rump stake/desert plus a $4 drink voucher, a middy, but if you add 50 cents you can have a schooner, the club also gives the Bistro operator $2 for each drinks voucher cashed at the bar. The club has done a lot with the Bistro, eg $8/3 course lunch, $10 dinner roast, a daily $9 special such as lamb shanks normally $13, special $9 on Wednesday my favorite. We had the "enemy within" namely the bistro operator, he wasn't too keen on all these specials, it took some work to get him on side, he's now turning a small profit so that's made him happy).

Is Mise,

Why should I believe you and not Colebatch? I don't think that's an unreasonable question. I have read a lot of his articles, and he is well-respected, known, with a reputation. You, on the other are just an anonymous poster like the the rest of us. You talk about your research. How do you know that is accurate? I think that if Colebatch was getting it as wrong as you claim he is, professionals in literary circles would have sprung him by now.

ttbn,

If a South Coast local newspaper prints a story on the 17th of October about a local bloke coming home from being a prisoner of war and that he landed from HMS "SPEAKER" on the 15th, that is two days before publication.
Now the type would have been set on Tuesday the 16th.
36 hours from 8:45 am of the Monday takes us to 8:45 pm of the Tuesday.

Someone must have conspired almightily to get the Cpl off the ship and down to Gerringong before the wharfies allegedly allowed the ship to dock, and to think that all the newspapers missed the story!!
As it was a Naval ship what would stop it from being berthed at a Naval Dock where there were no wharf labourers?

There is absolutely no reference from the times of the POWs being held up.
Colebatch is a sloppy author and has been outed repeatedly for his rotten research.

Jim Healy, Communist Party boss and a member of the Government's Stevedoring Industry Commission would have torn apart anyone who in any way interfered with the homecoming of the ex-prisoners.
"Big Jim" was a good friend of my father's, they first met in Queensland not long after Jim came to Australia and although political opponents remained close until Jim Healey's untimely death.
Dad often called him "My Irish Catholic, Commo mate."

Got anything to say about the Vultee Vengeance planes?

Where did Colebatch get that story?

ttbn, what Issy is presenting as evidence would stand up in a court of law. Not so the material in Colebatch's book.

Issy my Father was a great mate of Jack Lang. According to the old man, and my reading of Lang's books, Lang although a Socialist was vehemently anti Communists, the commo's hated Lang, and Lang hated them. Yet the far right always labeled Lang as such, and it stuck for the greater part of his life, and beyond.

OK, Is Mise; you've made up your mind.

Paul,

If you think that, why don't you get together a class action and take Colebatch to court.Perhaps your mate di Natale could chip in. He doesn't seem to have much to think about given his Australia Day absurdities.

Paul,

My dad was also a mate of "the Big Fella" so quite possibly knew your father.
I met Jack Lang a number of times as I went to school with his grandson, young Jim and I were good mates and used to play tennis on his grandfather's backyard court.

ttbn,

"OK, Is Mise; you've made up your mind."

Based on accurate research, I have; now would you like to prove me wrong?
Just Google the bits and see what you come up with.

How're you going on the Vultee Vengeance planes?

Found any stories of any combat missions that American pilots flew in them?

ttbn, "why don't you get together a class action and take Colebatch to court"
Class action, for what purpose, and for what group? I do not see the need.

Looks like with you being so willing to accept anything the far right comes up with, like that other poser ALTRAV on another thread, fell for the three card trick, blindly believing what you are fed. Bad mistake

Is Mise

I'm not interested enough to prove you wrong. If anything, you should do the proving as you are the one making accusations against a well known author, but I am not expecting you to do that.

As for Google, haven't you been reading lately of the censoring, blocking and anti-conservative attitudes of Google? I have never heard of a Vultee Vengeance, but that's not he point.

The point is that you have accused Colebatch of being wrong (the nice word for it). You have no real proof. I'm sure that I would find what you found in Google, but that might be wrong, too.

A bit late in the day, I know, but have you actually read “Australia's Secret War”, or are you merely going on what Google says or what book critics have said? I wonder, too, if Paul has read it.

If you and Paul don't have the confidence to take the 'court' option, how about submitting an article to Graham, fleshing out your problems with with the book. Hal might even see it and want to reply to you accusations. You could think about writing to him via the publisher, voicing your concerns. He might even concede some things to you.

I'm all for revealing untruths, if they exist. I have just finished reading two books exposing fraud – the multicultural fraud, the fraud of Martin Luther King, the fraud of Afrocentrist theories of ancient history just to name a few. Good stuff.

But, I have to say that I cannot stomach claims from anonymous people – who can't be made to front up – relying on Google and Wikipedia for 'proof'.

Still, as the book has been around for 5 years, whatever is said about it now is pretty irrelevant.

ttbn, don't bother. They don't want to hear anything which might dilute their extreme left, labor/union/commo stance.

They speak of their having been around these people as if that gives them insights as to what they did or were thinking.

Their argument about proof is also a deflection because any treasonous clandestine actions of any kind, are never documented or reported. Only a fool would record it and an even bigger fool would request it.

I have been tussling with Philips and his mates on another thread, to the point where I made my case, won the argument and moved on. Only to find him still bleating on here with his followers.

I gave 'first hand' accounts of some of these acts of treason in the form of my own father-in-law and how he came close to death and had to be shipped out only to have half his stomach removed. All because of these labor, union, commo loving bastards.

They are so far left they refuse to accept any blame for these acts of treason during the war.

What best explains the mentality of these types is, they admire someone they have barely seen from afar and know nothing about, yet they will reject a submission by someone who was there and suffered by the hand of these commo pigs. I won't mince words, if the shoe fits.

You are quite right in your backing Colebatch.

Why would he even begin to write on that topic if there was not at least enough truth and proof to make it over the line of reason?

I have quoted a real person, who was there, and suffered directly as a result of the direct actions of these pigs.

So ttbn, if I sound pissed off with people who 'don't want to hear' the truth, because of some stupid arrogant beliefs in some sick moronic, political party/union/commo loving anti Australians, I will not shy away and will always go on the attack.

I'll say it again; The unions/labor are an insidious, influence on us, our democracy and our future in general.

Is Mise,

The evidence is I'm afraid mounting against Colebatch's
book. Here's another link that explains the errors in it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/stanley-australias-secret-and-unhistorical-war/5960090

Foxy,

Your reference is 4 years old. It's all old stuff dug up by an apparently bored Is Mise. For something new, have a look at the Domain study that came with your email notification of new posts. It tells us that we are getting more polarised and snakeY in online discussion, although we probably knew that without the effort of doing a 'study'.

ttbn,

I still have high hopes that no matter what the
subject or the issue we can learn from each other.
I used to be so dogmatic in my views, as I get older
I'm beginning to realise that I've still got a lot
to learn. I'm still on my journey of discovery - and
this I trust will always be the case.

I was aged 15 when the Pacific War ended.
I recall many Communist graff

All those signs that I can recall advocated that the UK and USA start a second front.

The communists did not consider that the Battle of Britain and the Libya and Crete/Greece fronts were insignificant

"But did the Communists actually hinder or did they work with the Government to help the war effort?"

The level of assistance the communists gave depends on the period you are talking about.

If you are talking about the period from 23/8/39 through to 22/6/41 ie from the outbreak of the European war through to the German invasion of Russia then it can hardly be disputed that the communists were utterly opposed to the war and that the unions they controlled actively sought to hinder the war effort.

/cont

Reasons? Well in this period Russia was an ally of Germany and took part in the war on the German side. The communists in Australia were completely controlled by the Russian Comintern and therefore, on instruction from Moscow, sought to hinder the war against Hitler. There is plenty of communist literature from the time that demonstrates this.

But on 23/6/41 things changed. Suddenly Russia was in danger and was the ally of Britain. Immediately the communist, under orders from Moscow, changed and demanded greater not lesser efforts to help in the fight against Hitler.

Its rather an interesting feat but it was done all over the world. Communists suddenly decided that their previous opposition to the war was wrong and changed, overnight. Its the basis for the scene in '1984' where the crowd suddenly changes it stance as to who the real enemy is, virtually mid-sentence. And as in '1984' the memory of the communists opposing the war was erased, at least from leftists literature.

(another sad example was the singer Pete Seeger of 'Peter, Paul and Mary fame', who released an album in 1940 demanding that the US stay out of the war, stop supporting Britain and calling Roosevelt a war-monger for helping the enemy ie Britain. Following the invasion of Russia, that album was quickly withdrawn and replaced by an album of patriotic songs exhorting greater efforts to defeat the real enemy, Hitler, and praising Roosevelt's leadership . Seeger remained an unreconstructed communist until the end of his days.)

/cont

The communists and their unions were committed to the war for about two years. But once it was clear that the USSR was safe, and Japan's advances halted, around mid 43, they reverted to kind. Strikes and disruption of the war effort began to rise. The communists of that time were convinced that the coming victory of the Soviets would bring victory for International Communism, and so they began to consolidate their power and numbers.

The strikes and from mid 43 weren't really about disrupting the war effort but about using the war to gain benefits for members and therefore increase membership. The CPA's membership boomed in these days.

In the end the communists only whole-heartedly supported the war while Mother Russia was endangered. Once that passed they reverted to their instinctive views that the real war was against capitalism and they used the war to further that effort.

Their loyalty was to their class, their paymasters (Russia) and their thirst for power. There was no loyalty to Australia

mhaze, as the saying goes, 'I could kiss you'. I cannot believe the amount of effort we have to waste to make a point which is embedded in history and a well known fact, to some.

I am continually frustrated by some on these sites who WILL NOT accept something because they simply don't want to hear it, demanding proof.

Well one thing I have learned is, there is the truth, then there is the facts. Most of the time they differ. When there is first hand proof of something it should be taken seriously and any attempts to refute it should be met with scorn and derision.

We all know that everything has a political or religious lean. Any comments which are not favourable to a particular group (the left) will instantly and automatically be attacked. All manner of reasons will be produced to challenge the comments.

I choose to dismiss anything the left says or condemns. Of course they would do that, they don't want their disgusting anti democratic acts to be broadcast showing them for what they are. CRIMINALS!

Especially when it's true.

ALTRAV,

Is it true, as Colebatch states, that ex POWs were kept waiting for 36 hours to come ashore from HMS "SPEAKER"?

Or is it a plain old fashioned lie?

Ah AL where is the "One, Two, Three, YERRRRRRROUT! And the bell sounds as the crowd jump to their feet cheering and screaming out my name. ALTRAV, ALTRAV,.." now!

As usual you have been made to look rather foolish, you took the bait hook, line and sinker. Jumped in without checking, like your hearsay evidence from the father-in-law. It might be true, every word of it, but it pays to check the facts first before taking it on board and claiming I won, I won! As I sad AL The only bell you are hearing is that ding-a-ling brain of yours going off like a firecracker.

ttbn and others of the far right, do you agree with this ALTRAV statement;

"And it has been said, it's a shame that Japan and Germany did not win the war."

Well if you do maybe you can answer my question, ALTRAV would not.

Please explain what benefits we would be enjoying with a Hitler flunky running Australia?

"another sad example was the singer Pete Seeger of 'Peter, Paul and Mary fame', who released an album in 1940 demanding that the US stay out of the war, stop supporting Britain and calling Roosevelt a war-monger for helping the enemy ie Britain."

mhaze are you willing to say the same about Charles Lindbergh? Probably the most famous anti war American of the time. Do you have anything to say about the very vocal Conservative Coalition in the US which strong opposed war with Germany and Japan. It literally evaporated, December 7th 1941.

It's OK guys I've got this one. I am asked 'what benefits would we be enjoying with a Hitler flunky running Australia'?

Well where to begin. For starters we would be one of the most successful countries in the world. I take my cues from Germany. We would be more disciplined.

I don't think I need say anything more than; look at Germany and Japan today. Sure the allies had a lot to do with their start-up but boy did they take off.

We can imagine that the Japanese and German work ethic and our resources we would have exceeded both these countries in all the things we strive for in lifestyle and personal wealth.

Unions as we know them today would not exist. We would be a very prosperous country, again like Japan and Germany, only wealthier.

We would not fear for our lives in our own homes and more so if we ventured in certain 'no go' areas.

We would have been so far more advanced technologically. Our manufacturing would have been of 'worlds best practices' standards, and not some sick joke we keep telling ourselves that we are.

We would have still been making the most technologically advanced cars in the world. Instead we couldn't even sustain merely assembling what was originally a German car.

The Holden Commodore, it was actually a German OPEL, just re-badjed, and as usual, we called it our Aussie car. HAH! yeh, getting it now?

The answer to your question is right in front of your nose and has been since the end of the war, you know this, and yet you keep up this pathetic attempt to point score just to not have to admit your wrong.

If you truly believe that we are better than Japan and Germany today, in all the things that matter to us in pursuit of a happy and successful life, then I'm sorry, there is no helping you, you are a poor sad, lost soul.

I think that's enough benefits for now. More later if you still need more convincing.

Closer to home, we should take a look at the Un-Australian activity of the founder of the Liberal Party. and John Howard hero, 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies. Menzies had been loudly criticized for his failure as a 19 year old to volunteer to serve King and Country in WWI. Following an official visit to Nazi Germany in 1938, Menzies had returned with glowing reports about the Hitler regime.
In February 1942, Menzies/Fadden (Fadden was Menzies half wit successor as PM) were a party to the proposed infamous 'Brisbane Line', a proposal that Australia should cede half of the continent to the Japanese, all of that part north of Brisbane. The Menzies proposal was strongly rejected by the Curtain Labor government, which refused to countenance any proposal that would give Japan control of Australian territory. Instead committing to an all out effort to defeat Japan. The Brisbane Line proposal was correctly described by Labor Minister Eddie Ward as "defeatist" and "treacherous". The shocking proposal of Menzies contributed to Curtin and the Labor Party winning the 1943 federal election by a significant margin.

ALTRAV, and where would the Concentration Camps be located? In this Utopian society of National Socialism you so desire.

AH P1405, you mock and you knock and deflect to avoid facing the truth and anything that paints you and your lot in your true colours or light.

If your going to 'try' to win points, at least make them relevant. I could not give a rats arse what Menzies or anyone else tried to do or suggested. I have given you actual acts of treachery and treason not just thinking or talking about it.

The points you asked for have been answered and rather convincingly.

Do I think Australia would have been better off if we were run like Japan and Germany? ABSOLUTELY!

This place has gone to sh!t and anyone with a modicum of maturity and common sense would agree.

There is little or nothing about living in Australia these days, that one can boast or brag about being better than other countries.

You are a second class citizen unless you are an abo a queer or any number of minorities out there.

As to the Colebatch book....

Its jam-packed with stories and details about how the union movement conducted themselves in the war years. But those who want the history to look the the other way have attempted to discredit the book by taking a couple of things they can deem to be errors and the insinuating that the entire book is erroneous. The same tactic was used against Windschuttle's book on the Tasmania.

So they've zeroed in on two supposed errors. First the flight of what Colebatch calls the American Vultee Vengeances. Nowhere does he say that the Americans were flying these planes. He meant were made in America - the same way we might talk about a Japanese Toyota sitting in Broken Hill. But the critics decided to take an ambiguous phrase and assert error. It is likely that the planes were flown by Aussies or NZers and its possible that he has the type of plane wrong. But all that is peripheral since the main point is about the stolen valves. And that's not disputed.

The second 'error' is over the POW ship. It is asserted that there was no POW named Monk(s) and therefore the story is wrong. But it now turns out that such a person did exist. So the critics were wrong, yet continued to assert that Colebatch was wrong.

The point of these criticisms are to give excuses to those who don't want Colebatch's point to be true, to reject it. When Foxy, Paul et al Google "Reasons to reject Colebatch" (or the suchlike) they aren't looking for the truth. they are looking for excuses to reject. That they find lots of people saying the same thing and reading from the same sheet isn't evidence of anything other the echo chamber.

The book has literally hundreds of examples of union bastardary from the war. Even if the two alleged errors were errors, it would be inconsequential in the scheme of things. To get a flavour of the sort of detail in the book, read this article....

http://www.nationalobserver.net/2004_summer_112.htm

Ahhhh, so Paul goes the 'what-about' route. What about Lindbergh, what about the anti-war activists in the US, (bizarrely) what about the Brisbane Line.

Essentially the 'what-about' argument says, OK I agree that these people I support were wrong, but others over there were bad as well...so there. Of coarse Paul will never bring himslef to concede that the communists of the time were less than saintly, but the what-about argument is a tacit admission. Good.

OK Lindbergh...he was hopelessly naive, probably anti-Semitic and certainly attracted by fascism. He opposed war just like Seeger. But the difference was that Seeger opposed the war because of his support for Russia and supported it to support Russia. Lindbergh was always about the US. He opposed it because he thought that was best for the US and he threw himself into the war effort when the US was attacked.
He also repented from his fascist leanings once he learned of the atrocities of Nazism whereas Seeger never repented of his communism despite the ample evidence of the atrocities of communism. (has Paul repented?).

Charles Lindbergh, resigned his commission in the US Air Corps at the outbreak of the war and never regained it. He become an employee of the Jew hater Henry Ford in 1942 and spent the war as a well paid Ford executive.

Lindberg quote; "I was deeply concerned that the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler's destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia's forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of western civilization."

Could that be interpreted as the words of a Nazi apologists?

AL; Obviously given your line that an Axis victory in WWII would have been appropriate and beneficial. I take it you disagreed with the father-in-law fighting the Japanese. He would have been much better off if they had taken him into captivity in one of their POW camps, say in Burma.

P1405, again you presume. I don't know, maybe he would not have lost half his stomach through lack of food due to the supply ships not arriving on time because your mates were stopping them from leaving port with food and supplies.

Seeing as how, apparently, you were in a POW camp in Burma at that time, perhaps you could tell us how bad it was. At least he would have been fed, even if very little!

AL

The accounts in the Colebatch book suit your world view, and you say your F-I-L might have been better off in a Japanese POW camp. Understandable considering your view is we would be "all" better off had there been a Japanese victory in WWII.

OK Paul, can you say categorically that we would not have been better off if the Germans and the Japanese had one the war. Did the allies go storming in to Japan and Germany, after the war, killing and exacting revenge for their part in the war?

No we actually helped them rebuild and get them back on their feet, at the same time helping ourselves along the way.

The same courtesy would have been awarded to us had we lost the war.

I gather, by your inference that you foresaw a situation whereby we would be stood over like in the POW camps.

That was not the case. Remember, before and after the war, these were people just like you and I going about their daily lives.

What did the allies do with the POW's after the war? Well the same or similar would have been the case for us if we had lost.

"The same courtesy would have been awarded to us had we lost the war."

ALTRAV you are certainly showing your true colours. Could any Australian in their right mind agree with you. I don't think so.
The track record of both the Nazi's and the Japs in countries they conquered was abysmal. We did not ships millions of people off to gas chambers from occupied countries. You are now up to your neck in it!

Concerning the treatment of Australian POW's by the Japanese, there is a mountain of documented evidence as to how shockingly there were treated.

P1405, you are talking war time, not in piece time. The guards at POW camps, immediately put their guns and bayonets aside the moment they received word of the end of the war.

They just left. They didn't open fire on the prisoners as I think you would have us believe. There will always be a certain amount of rejection from the losers in such events as wars.

Neither of these two countries would have treated the allies with malice or mal-intent, once the war was over. It just would not be allowed to happen.

Only the Australians with an open mind would agree with me. Anyone else with a right mind or left mind like yourself, will see it just as you do.

Don't confuse war with piece. there were atrocities on ALL sides. Yes even us. There had to be, humans are emotional creatures and so it was that things sometimes got out of hand. Possibly for good reasons.

Back to topic; so you are saying that after looking at the technological and financial advances these two countries have achieved in the 60 odd years since the war, that we would not have been better off than we are today.

Now, ask your question again? 'could any Australian in their right mind agree with you, I don't think so'.

AL, this is now about YOU claiming we would have been better off with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan winning WWII. Take that claim down to your local RSL and see who wants to buy you a beer. There is no ambiguity in your assertion, its on the forum record for all to see.
Non of the far right forum posters want to go down that road with you. You are all on your lone-sum with your scandalised claim. And don't try and muddy the waters now by wriggling about, trying to add something new like; "I'm talking about after the war" you spoke the words of a true National Socialists.

So P1405, which war are you talking about. I will not retract my comments and if the RSL won't buy me a beer, that's OK, I don't drink.
You can't try to point score on this. You know full well what I am on about.

BTW, to do a P1405 and deflect; You have not responded to the 'confirmed' claims of your disgusting treasonous lot of commo mates, the warfies, and them holding the supply ships back from leaving to restock our troops abroad.

Now, let's see you taking that claim down to ANY RSL and see who will buy YOU a beer.

AL, I was NOT in favour of "wharfies" or anyone else for that matter, holding up supplies in Australian ports that were needed by front line troops. There were strikes, that is in the historical record, what is questioned is what motivated those strikes, their effect on the overall war effort, your nonsense trying to link the Labor Party to Communism.

My own position on War. I am a pacifists, I believe all wars are avoidable and wrong, WWII included. Unless the correct action is taken in the first place, then unfortunately war is the end result. millions suffer, millions die.

I now question YOU and your assertion that we would be better off if Germany/Japan had won WWII. Just for your edification two uncles, my mothers brothers, both served in New Guinea during WWII.

Issy, maybe you can clear this one up for me, having your military knowledge. My Uncle Norm was in the Water Transport in NG, in small boats taking supplies up river, fine. But Uncle Frank was a barber, I can testify to that, by the shocking hair cuts he would give us kids, with his manual clippers, scissors, comb and Brylcreem, we hated the stuff, all short back and sides. after the war Uncle Frank worked for a long time as a Milkman, thankfully never professionally touching a pair of scissors again.
My question is could he really have been a barber in NG during the war? Mum always said he was, did they have such people. He was a jolly fella, and I vaguely recall him saying, something like "they also serve, those who stand and cut!.....keep still boy!"

Paul,

I'd say that he was a barber, obviously from what you say he wasn't a trained barber, but to my knowledge, all units, of any size, had a barber, skill came with time and practice, it wasn't a qualification for the job!!

It was very necessary to keep hair reasonably short, the "short back and sides" is based on hygiene more than military uniformity.

ALTRAV,

Food supplies to New Guinea.

Have a read of:
http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/Web-Printer/C592C2E2ABD3E30DCA256D7500001FEE?OpenDocument

https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/history/conflicts/kokoda-track/events/jungle-warfare/problem-supply

Most non-perishable food from Australia went by ship,
Have you got anything to say about the merchant seamen who lost their lives on the run to New Guinea?

Seems that some of them were Communists.

ALTRAV ,
Re your statement below
"you have not responded to the 'confirmed' claims of your disgusting treasonous lot of commo mates, the warfies, and them holding the supply ships back from leaving to restock our troops abroad."

I too knew of this blocking of supplies to our troops,when the Japanese were coming
down through the Isands to the North of Australia.
Their reasoning was, that Japan was only attacking because it was the fault of
America. ( sound familiar). They said that America had put an embargo on supplying
oil to Japan and this is why Japan was attacking us. They didnt however, say, why America had done that. I dont think they counted the Chinese deaths as meaning any thing.

In the Late 1930s, in the years before world war 2 started, Japan had invaded China
and took the Manchuria Railway and Manchurian goldmine, killing miliions of Chinese
in the process. In an attempt to stop the slaughter, the Americans wouldnt supply them with the oil and fuel they needed to run their tanks and war machines.

But contrary to the leftist thinking, that America was at fault, back in Japan they had mapped out plans in the years before they joined Hitler. They called these plans, "Invasion for the Greater Good and advancement of Asia," or something to that effect.
They told the Japanese people this, to make it sound like they were conquering all the surrounding countries for the benefit of all.

But as far as the left unionist wharfies were concerned it was all the fault of America.
This is exactly how the left filter everything today, no matter what the truth is, its always the fault of America.
Also, my Dad was a young man at the time of the second world war, and he says he remembers the wharfies blocking supplies to our troops. I never heard it from him originally, but when I spoke of it one time, he said, "I remember that!"

Cherful, unless you are about 100 years old, you have no personal knowledge of what you claim. It may be true, so where did you get that from? Lets have a look at some history.

Granted, the Roosevelt administration's attitude to Japanese expansionism in Asia was cool to say the least, and there was in a limited way a pro British slant. Many in Congress, were Isolationists and believed America had no business in Asia. America had a long standing commercial treaty with Japan. Japan was freely purchasing aircraft engines and aviation fuel from the US until January 1940, when then it become necessary for Japan to apply on a case by case basis to purchase any considered strategic materials. There was never a compete oil embargo placed by the US on Japan. In July 1940 the US made things tougher for Japan, where it was forced to seek a licence to purchase aircraft engines and some other war materials from US manufactures. Also in July 1940 the US placed an embargo on the export of 86 octane aircraft fuel to Japan, but the Japanese had anticipated this and had found a way to operate their aircraft using 76 octane. Roosevelt did not believe a complete oil embargo would be effective against Japan. Having this to say;

"The real answer which you cannot use is that if we forbid oil shipments to Japan, Japan will increase her purchases of Mexican oil and furthermore, may be driven by actual necessity to a descent on the Dutch East Indies. At this writing, we all regard such action on our part as an encouragement to the spread of war in the Far East."

ALTRAV,

You have made assertions that wharfies holding up food supplies to the troops in New Guinea caused your father-in-law to have a constant health problem.
Given the complexity of food supply in the New Guinea area, as outlined in the links given, do you not think that he may have been mistaken?

Is Mise, of this fact I am certain. Because he was a forward radio observation post, ie; he was somewhere out the front and high up so he could have a clear view of any approaching enemy by sea or air.

His location was in typically thick jungle so as to not be seen, with very little or nothing in the way of comfort accessories. He had to be invisible. I don't know how they got food and supplies to him because of him 'hiding' on the edge of the jungle.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'constant health problem'. Once he was operated on and half his stomach removed, I don't think he had any 'constant health problems'.

But I imagine one of P1405's uncles can elaborate as he worked on the supply boats re stocking the troops from the supply ships when they arrived in port in New Guinea and then deliver them up the river to certain locations, by smaller boats.

BTW, the 'holding up the supply ships' was not an ascertain but a proven by records and media of the day. Other commentors have come forth with links, publications and proof of these events as well.

In the meantime, Hal Colebatch is serenely contributing excellent articles to The Spectator and probably planning another book, totally unaware of his learned critics who have just picked up on the book five years after he wrote it.

Seems to me that, "When you can't solve today's problems re masticate yesterdays" and call it historical relevance.

Altrav,

So your father-in-law had half of his stomach removed because of wharfies holding up the supply of foodstuffs?
The poor unloading facilities in New Guinea would not have caused a holdup?
The Japanese air raids likewise?

As I said food supply was complex and to blame strikes that held up non-perishable food, for your relative's condition is simplistic.

Food grows in profusion in New Guinea and much fresh food for the military was sourced locally.

Is Mise, we can debate the pro's and con's of food availability at the time. This information was a matter of record as described by the medical staff, surgeons, and whoever was involved in diagnosing his illness.

I vaguely remember snips of info such as he did not move from his hiding spot for fear of being detected. How he got the food I have no idea. He did try some vegetation within immediate reach, but I don't remember all the details.

I do remember something along the line of the stomach and corrosive and something like eating itself?

I don't know I might see if I can find out more. I don't reject your assertions but no matter how you twist it if the supplies had gotten there a week earlier, all the problems you speak of would have been allowed for a week earlier.

So we'll never know, except for what we know, and yes the problem was so serious the ships Captains both Australian and American had to restrain their seamen who were going to attack and kill the warfies, yes kill them.

So you believe your speculations. I choose to believe the truth from actual people who were there.

AL, your story about your father-in-law is interesting, but it is only a story. You offer no substantive documented proof to directly link industrial action in Australia with your F-I-L's end condition. Is Mise has repeatedly questioned your simplistic story telling, with what is well established documented facts.
With honesty you now admit to vague recollections of snippets of information, something along the lines, admitting you don't know, and you will never know. Interesting.

Special D, go blow it out your nostril, no one is asking your to contribute anything.

No Paul, my comments of 'snippets' and so on are in reference to 'more' information about 'his story'. I do not intend to 'prove' anything because what happened is a matter of record.

You on the other hand continually reject submissions that 'you' don't want to hear. What I have written is true accounts of a person/s who fell victims to enemy actions.

What happened to him IS a direct result of those enemy actions. It was real, it happened, and no matter what you say it is now a part of history.

You question the veracity of my words. I cannot think of why, unless you have some connection to these anti Australians.

Finding ANY material condemning or highlighting these types of activities, even today, will be difficult as the left will not want it revealed, in exactly the same way you are continually challenging me!

Just accept that these things happen and move on. Trying to debunk them now only gives rise to exposing these traitors only to encourage people to look into these accusations and finally bringing them to the fore.

Which is not what you and your lot want. So there's a good boy, stop stirring the pot or you will be doing yourself and your mates, a grave injustice.

LEST WE FORGET!

ALTRAV,

Only non-perishable food was sent by coastal freighters, crewed by members of a union generally considered to be communist controlled, yet these men went to sea knowing that they stood a chance of being sunk.
I've known some brave men in my time, including VC winners, but I'd rate the merchant seamen stokers as among the bravest.

Most of our coastal merchant ships in WWII were coal-fired and the stokehold was amidships, just where a torpedo would be aimed and most likely hit.
Stokers on duty had very little hope of escaping from the hell of scalding steam and burning coal, that is if they were not mercifully
killed by the initial explosion.
These men were not denying supplies but delivering them.

Many of them were probably card-carrying members of the Communist Party and were helping the war effort.

There is no way that your in law could have starved because of any actions of either wharfies or merchant seamen, as I said perishable food was sourced locally and the New Guineans were glad of the business.

For what the rations should have been see:
http://clik.dva.gov.au/reports-studies-research-papers-library/research-and-health-studies/animal-fat-australian-diet/attachment-2-service-ration-scales-world-war-2

Note that much of the meat ration is 'carcass weight' and not 'butchers' weight, i.e. the former includes bones and other inedibles.
The Government saved money by using carcass weight, only the troops suffered.

Is Mise, I must ask you review my previous comments. My anger has been directed at the warfies here in Australia. I absolutely did not and never have maligned the men who delivered the supplies.

As you say they were brave men, my FIL spoke well of them and the risk they took did not go un-noticed or without praise. I also knew about the local foods as well.

Is Mise, my anger is and has always been directed at those who were, for whatever reason, not fighting or putting their lives on the line and doing things like holding up the supply ships.

It was not a trivial matter when the seamen on those ships, both US and Aussie were prepared to kill the warfies, I would think it was a rather serious matter, in fact a matter of life and death.

If no-one is going to believe my story about my FIL, that's OK, I can't prove anything anyway, only what is on the record. But I will not back down on the antics that the warfies/unions/communists unleashed on our supply ships.

That was the point I started with and that is the point I finish with. As for my derogatory comments about Aussies and Australia, whether some like it or not, given the appropriate topic I will gladly elaborate, warts and all.

It's not a pretty story.

Paul 1405
I didnt say I was alive when the leftist wharfies decided to block supplies to our troops
when the Japanese started coming down through the Islands.

I said I knew of it. My dad who was a teenage lad at the time and is 87years old now,
remembers it.
I'll tell you how I knew of it, I grew up in a staunch labour, leftist, working class family.
and sitting around at dinner parties or familly gatherings, years after the war, the leftist
in the gathering still angrily blamed the Americians, saying, "we would never have been attacked" if the Americans hadnt but an oil embargo or "trade restrictions" on the Japanese.
I believed it too, until in later years I read about the Japanese invasion of China in the late 1930s and how they killed just as many chinese as Hitler did jews, a staggering number in the millions. And that was the reason America imposed certain trade saction on them.

It made me realise, that the extreme left, cherry picked out historical details to suit their anti-American, communist, anti-capitalist, thinking. Its like a fanatical idealism, like a religious zeal. I often wonder also, why the millions of Chinese killed, was ignored, whereas the millions of Jews killed, is carried on about in movies and documentaries over and over again. I learned from it, to always look up and find out the real story, or the whole story, because humans filter things and proclaim things on limited information that suits their own thinking.

And that is why the left wing wharfies, at the beginnings of the Japanese threat, blocked supples, but as Australian deaths started to rise and the Japanese attacked Darwin, Townsville and Sydney with planes and submarines in Sydney. The left had to get serious about defending themselves and Australia, so they left their blaming it on America til after the war. Having sat round at social gatherings listening to them they still believed that America started the war with the Japs by blocking oil and trade.

Chinese Whispers: a fun wireless parlour game that people of all ages can enjoy.

~ Chinese Whispers Part 1: The Second World War, In Which We Give the Fascists A Jolly Good Thrashing ~

One of the key defining features of Communism is their commitment to internationalism. A Communist's commitment to Communism takes precedence over ties to nation state, religion, or anything else that might get in the way. It's very cult-like in that respect.

Before the war started, Chinese and Russia both succumbed to the red menace. But it wasn't such a menace in those days - that concept didn't kick off until the Cold War, which comes AFTER the 2nd World War.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. When war kicked off in Europe, the Germans and Russians had a non-aggression treaty, and Australian Communists were opposed to the war. If any interference with the war effort occurred, it occurred during the period that Germany and Russia were at peace.

But in June 1941 Hitler decided it would be a brilliant idea to invade Russia (two things not to put on your bucket list: invading Moscow during winter, and invading Afghanistan at all) and as a result they joined the Allies against the Axis. So from that point on, until the end of the war, there was no motive for Communists to interfere with the war effort. Their comrades were allies of the British Empire, so there was no conflict of interest.

It was after the alliance of the Ruskies with the Allies that war kicked off in the Pacific... I still don't really trust the Japanese. I reckon they're up to something. But by that point it was the British Empire, including her dominions like Australia - but let us not also forget the noble sacrifices of the other Imperial colonies, such as Indians or Canadians. Did you guys know that James Doohan, the Canadian actor who played 'Scotty' on 'Star Trek', served with considerable distinction on D-Day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Doohan

Took six bullets for his country, and went on to be the finest engineer Starfleet has ever seen. Quite a career. But I digress...

By the time we were at war with Japan it was the British Empire and her dominions, the USA & the USSR - that's us, the good guys, the Allies. And in the opposite corner we have the Dagos (Italians), Slopes (Japanese) and Krauts (Germans). They're the Axis, the bad guys. The Communists are all on our side because the Russians are within the Axis, and the Chinese view the Japanese as imperialist aggressors. Long story short, we give the Axis a damn good thrashing in Europe and the USA nukes Japan. Twice, just in case the first one didn't send a strong enough message...

So, war over. And what have we learnt from history at this point? Well, we've learnt that fascism is a very bad idea. And some of the smarter people, as well as the Japanese, have learnt that nukes are a very bad idea. It will take some time for that message to filter through. But we're still fairly good mates with our former Allies, and it won't really be until the Cold War kicks off and revelations about the horrors of the Stalinist regime emerge that people really cotton onto the idea that Communism is daft.

So be sure to tune in next week for 'Chinese Whispers Part 2: The Cold War, In Which We Show The Commies Who's Boss'. Highlights include the partition of Germany, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, the role of Democratic Labour Party in domestic politics, the collapse of the Berlin wall, and a lot more whining about nukes.

Cheerful, the "left" did not believe that America started the war with the Japs by blocking oil and trade. Your relatives and their friends sitting around at dinner parties or family gatherings, years after the war, believed that. You extrapolate from your observations at these family gatherings etc, which is only hearsay on your part that what they said must have been a fact, and must have applied to all of the "left". It may have been the case, but like ALTRAVE and his anecdotal evidence from a relative who spent some time in New Guinea during the war its not proof, its the opinions of a few, or in AlTRAVE's case the opinion of one. Questions could be asked, like at the time of making these claims were these people drunk or sober, what was their mental state etc. Again i will say, what you claim to be a universal fact, may well be true, but you can not supply evidence to support that claim. My old Granny use to say "eat your crusts, it makes your hair go curly." Because she said it, didn't make it a fact, or should I believe what Granny said must be a fact, because Granny said it.

Thanks Toni, I enjoyed reading your post, with its touch of humour. I've have refrained from putting forward the many opinions my 'Old Man' (1912- 1987) shared with me, about that period of Australia's political history. It makes today politics look positively boring. As I said to Issy the old bloke was a "Lang Man", so his opinions were always coloured by his loyalty to Jack Lang, the 'Big Fella' was respected like a god by his devotees, my father included. If you wanted an argument just question the actions of Lang with Dad. Give you an idea of politics in those days, after his sacking by the Governor, Lang was able to pull a crowd of 250,000 to a political rally in Moore Park in 1932, then he promptly lost the election. That would be equivalent to a Turnbull or Shorten pulling a crowd of 1,000,000 today, they would be lucky to pull 250 on a fine day, 25 if it rains.

A bit of a short read;

http://www.sydneyharbourbridge.info/jacklang.html

There was a close link between conservatism and fascism in Australia in the 1930's. My claim that the founder of the Liberal Party 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies was a pseudo-fascist, are well founded.

A small correction:

//The Communists are all on our side because the Russians are within the Axis//

Should obviously have been:

\\The Communists are all on our side because the Russians are within the Allies\\

Oops. Bit of a cock-up, that one.

Here's another little example of the research that Colebatch didn't do,

"...Again these ships [Liberty Ships] were so well built that they lasted for decades, and it is only for reasons other than any structural unsoundness that they are not still in service."
Colebatch, H.G.P. "Australia's Secret War", 2013. p.194, para.2.

Colebatch uses this statement of apparent fact as part of his argument that Australian shipbuilders were not up to scratch.

Various mentions of the Liberty ships' faults can be found on Google.

"The failure of many of the World War II Liberty ships[1] is a well-known and dramatic example of the brittle fracture of steel that was thought to be ductile.[2] Some of the early ships experienced structural damage when cracks developed in their decks and hulls. Three of them catastrophically split in half when cracks formed, grew to critical lengths, and then rapidly propagated completely around the ships’ girths. Figure shown below is one of the ships that fractured the day after it was launched."
http://metallurgyandmaterials.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/liberty-ship-failures/

How did our author, that paragon of meticulous research, miss this small detail?

Issy, that is interesting, I would have thought it was common knowledge that the US built Liberty ships were built for a purpose, and that was not to last, but to be useful supply ships in the short term. They were never going to win any awards for brilliant design and durability.
Many of the construction workers such as welders, some women and men, who had never welded in their lives got a crash course in the trade, and were quickly put to work.

Many Australian industrialists made a motza out of the war. Businesses that were little more than tin sheds in 1939, had by 1945 become highly profitable concerns. This on the backs of Australia's fighting men and women. One of the less than honest methods was to exploit the governments 'Cost Plus' system. In simple terms the system of exploration involved downgrading production to a minimum level, with maximum labour when the government inspectors were there to determine what the government would fix as a reasonable price based on the cost of production plus 15% profit margin. Then things changed when the inspectors had gone, maximum production with minimum labour. Fairly simple system, but it produced a healthy profit for many business owners, well above the 15% allowable. Such practices were detrimental to the war effort, but good for the bottom line.

We could also discuss the exploitation of the 'protected occupation' system. Many a boy from Vaucluse found a safe home in daddies business employed in a so called protected occupation, never seeing war service. 172 occupations were listed as "reserved" in 1939.

War can bring out some of the best qualities in man, it can also bring out some of the worse.