Does Major General Steve Gower deserve censure?

DOES MAJOR GENERAL STEVE GOWER DESERVE CENSURE?

Pacific War Historian James Bowen argues that denial by the Australian War Memorial of the gravity of the Japanese threat to Australia throughout 1942 promotes a false history of Australia's most perilous year and justifies intervention by the Council of the Memorial because it could damage the reputation for historical scholarship of the Memorial

"Curtin did not save Australia from any real threat."
This offensive claim by Dr Peter Stanley of the Australian War Memorial is shown to be nonsense in the chapter "Defending the character and leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin from unjustified slurs". The quote is from Dr Stanley's essay: "He's (not) coming South - the invasion that wasn't" (2002)

" It is time that Australians stopped kidding themselves that their country faced an actual invasion threat and looked seriously at their role in the Allied war effort".
Dr Peter Stanley of the Australian War Memorial exposes his ignorance of Japan's plans to force Australia's surrender in 1942, and exposes his failure to understand the dynamics of the Pacific War. From his essay: "He's (not) coming South - the invasion that wasn't" (2002).

"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 of the Australian War Memorial insults Australians who believe that their country faced a grave threat from Japan in
1942 when he speaks dismissively of the deadly Japanese offensive against Australia in his essay "Threat made manifest" (2005).

"Dr Stanley has legitimate arguments in my opinion."
Major General Steve Gower, AO, Director, Australian War Memorial,email dated 8 November 2005.

Distorting history for young Australians?

Those responsible for management of the Australian War Memorial have continued to display this controversial sign in the World War II gallery in apparent defiance of reported criticism of its theme by former Prime Minister John Howard and then Leader of the Federal Opposition Kim Beazley and evidence that the text exhibit is riddled with major historical errors.

On 28 October 2005, as convener of the Battle for Australia Historical Society, I contacted by email the director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Steve Gower AO. I specifically mentioned reported criticism by Prime Minister John Howard and then Opposition Leader Kim Beazley of Dr Peter Stanley's controversial denial of the grave Japanese threat to Australia in 1942 and Dr Stanley's attacks on the leadership and character of Prime Minister John Curtin. I requested an opportunity to explain to the director where Peter Stanley had fallen into serious historical errors and to demonstrate that his controversial 1942 revisionism was largely based on misrepresentation of the published work of a distinguished Japan scholar and historian Professor Henry Frei. My concern was to prevent a damaging public debate that could harm the reputation for historical scholarship of the Australian War Memorial.

In his emailed reply to me dated 8 November 2005, Major General Gower declined to take up my offer to discuss Dr Stanley's highly controversial views about 1942 and Prime Minister Curtin, and he said,

"Dr Stanley has legitimate arguments in my opinion".

Those responsible for management of the Australian War Memorial have continued to display prominently the controversial sign above in the World War II gallery for over three years in apparent defiance of reported criticism of its theme by a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Federal Opposition and in the face of evidence that the text is riddled with historical "howlers". I believe this should be a matter for public concern.

The Australian War Memorial does not partake of the character of a university campus. It is a sacred memorial to Australia's war dead. The national war memorial belongs to the people of Australia and not to Major General Steve Gower and his bureaucrats. The Memorial should not be used as a platform from which its staff can publish what appears to be poorly researched or trendy postmodern denial of the gravity of the Japanese threat to Australia in 1942 and attacks on the character and wartime leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin. As a graduate historian, and a specialist Pacific War historian, I formed the view that this controversial historical revisionism was poorly researched and lacked any sound historical foundation. As I have pointed out in earlier chapters, this revisionism is likely to cause deep offence to those who respect the wartime leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin and to diminish the achievements and sacrifices of those who died defending Australia from Japanese military aggression. If Australian War Memorial staff want to engage in controversial behaviour of this sort, I believe that they should resign from the Memorial and seek work at a university.

The controversial historical revisionism mentioned in the previous paragraph is largely contained in essays by the Australian War Memorial's former senior historian Dr Peter Stanley who resigned from the Memorial in late 2006. For those viewers who may have difficulty accessing this revisionist material, I have provided on this web-site a representative sample of the more controversial revisionist claims about Australia's strategic situation in 1942 and Prime Minister Curtin.

Having failed to persuade the director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Steve Gower, that he should receive and consider my reasons for disagreeing with Dr Stanley's controversial denial of the gravity of the Japanese threat to Australia in 1942 and his attacks on the leadership and character of Prime Minister John Curtin, I felt obliged to set out those reasons on this web-site in these chapters dealing with Australia under threat from Japan. I have attempted to demonstrate by reference to established historical facts and recognised authorities on the Pacific War, including the official Japanese history of the Pacific War Senshi Sosho and the text of Professor Frei's authoritative work "Japan's Southward Advance and Australia", that Dr Stanley's controversial claims and views lack any sound historical foundation.

In this context, I feel that it is necessary for me to repeat that since December 2005, I have been calling on Dr Peter Stanley and his supporter Major General Steve Gower to provide me with documentary evidence that they claim supports Dr Stanley's revisionist denial of the gravity of the Japanese threat to Australia in 1942 and his attacks on the character and wartime leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin. Despite the substantial resources available to the Australian War Memorial, no such evidence has been produced to me despite my undertaking to acknowledge and publish it on this web-site even if it contradicts my own views.

Dr Stanley has responded to my historical proofs by backing away from some of his more outrageous claims about 1942, including his attacks on Prime Minister Curtin, and by withdrawing any reference to support from Professor Frei in his later publications on this theme.

Dr Peter Stanley's decision to resign from the Australian War Memorial in 2006 and take up a research post at the National Museum of Australia does not resolve this unpleasant controversy attaching to our national war memorial. It appears to me that Major General Steve Gower has knowingly provided Dr Stanley with a platform at the War Memorial to publish insulting, offensive, and strongly challenged views that are likely to diminish the achievements and sacrifices of those who defended Australia from Japanese aggression throughout 1942 and to cause deep offence to those who respect the wartime leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin. As the son of member of the Royal Australian Navy who endured sixty Japanese air raids on Darwin, I personally find it appalling that the national War Memorial has been used for these purposes, and continued to be so used in apparent defiance of the reported criticism of Dr Stanley's revisionism by former Prime Minister John Howard and then Opposition Leader Kim Beazley after those views were brought to the attention of Major General Steve Gower by me.

It appears to me that a large measure of responsibility for this damaging controversy continuing in the public arena for over three years rests with Major General Steve Gower who rejected my initial offer to attempt to resolve this issue by private discussions in 2005, and who has continued to display the controversial and historically flawed text exhibit (mentioned above) in the Memorial's World War II gallery. I feel that an issue that affects the reputation for historical scholarship of the Australian War Memorial deserves consideration by the Council of the Australian War Memorial.

The Council is responsible for the conduct and control of the affairs of the Memorial and the policy of the Memorial with respect to any matters determined by the Council.

Members of Council:
Dr Ross Bastiaan AM RFD
Air Marshal Mark Binskin AM
Mr Les Carlyon
Vice Admiral Russ Crane AM CSM RAN
Major General Bill Crews AO (Ret'd)
Lt General Ken Gillespie AO DSC CSM
RADM Simon Harrington AM RAN
The Honourable Mrs Jocelyn Newman AO
Mr Ken Peacock AM
Air Marshal Doug Riding AO DFC (Ret’d)
Ms Wendy Sharpe
Mr Kerry Stokes AC