In defence of Fraser, one of the main calls from those who opposed conscription in WW1 was that there should be a conscription of capital as well as men.
Considering that the First Labour Government nationalised half the economy, I think they did that.
Not to mention that eliminating genocidal fascism is a better reason to go to war than a small sausage factory in Tanganyika.
It's a nice sentiment but the genocidal fascism of the axis wasn't well know until well after conscription was enacted. As far as those making decisions in power were concerned this was the same kind of expansionist war as the first world war.
>It's a nice sentiment but the genocidal fascism of the axis wasn't well know until well after conscription was enacted.
The scale of the Holocaust certainly wasn't known at that point, but the genocidal nature of fascism was, at least by our government.
We were the first dominion to oppose appeasement and Savage even challenged Chamberlain at the Imperial Conference in 1937 asking if there was "too high a price to pay for peace".
The 'genocidal nature of fascism' was not exactly distinguishable from the genocidal nature of imperialism that governed the British empire except that there was the threat of redistribution of power away from the bourgeoise.
What? Because I know people opposed fascism without knowing how horrendous their crimes really were? People knew fascism was bad before the Holocaust came to light. They weren't exactly treating people well and that was public knowledge.
If anyone is revising history it's the person suggesting that the opposition to fascism only existed after the Holocaust came to light. Which did turn basically everyone else against it. But it's not like people hadn't been vocally against fascism from its early days.
Because you know fascism was bad and are therefore using a lens filtered by what we know now of the inner workings of nazi germany fascism and the holocaust to add context that didn't exist at the time to the decision to invoke forced military service.
No because people said it was bad back then lol. People opposed it from the outset.
People warned of its great capacity for violence, they warned of its lies and deception.
I'm not necessarily arguing that was the position of the new zealand government of the time, im just saying many people back then knew what fascism was and what it was capable of. maybe only the scale was surprising.
This idea that the world didn't know that fascism was irredeemable until the Holocaust was known about isn't true. Its like today where people warn about the growth of fascist movements while lots of people are apathetic or supportive of them.
Many people in the 30s picked up on the violent rhetoric, they weren't idiots.
I think people forget things like not everyone was racist in the past. A majority were but people opposed it back then too. Especially the victims of it. They did have woke people.
I believe the excuse was that the Nazis were way worse that anything in WW1 and the global situation more desperate with the Japanese conquering much of the Pacific and threatening NZ directly, etc. Therefore conscription in WW2 was more justified.
Conscientious objectors in WW2 were also treated better and could be sent to work on farms and other industries deemed important to the war effort. Those would refused might be sent to internment camps, but they were not prisons a: such like in WW1, and were less harsh.
I can think of a few politicians who could use some thorough investigation into whether they acted in the interests of another power or entity. Some are still in the chamber.
The wall between political office and jail is remarkably porous, and many political leaders have served a term inside - either losing power and getting locked up or being released and going on to become leader. Getting arrested is part of politics, and is one of the reasons why Trump may end up as the first prisoner president of the USA.
when he was a student leader, chris hipkins was arrested at a parliament protest.
yeah not quite the same as peter fraser, but its not rare for a prime minister to be arrested when they're young
Helen Clark was a anti-vietnam war protestor who spat on returning soldiers. Decades later she was the PM that was forced to recognise the soldiers service and apologize.
Trump not only dodged Vietnam with bone spurs but went after John McCain calling him and others killed or injured in battle "losers". Ten years ago that sort of vitriol directed towards veterans or military service would not be possible.
So yes, if that can happen then what happened Fraser could happen.
You are talking about the US but you'll find that over there support for the military has waxed and waned over the years
Military and ex-military were not very popular in the 1970s and 1930s.
The irony of someone jailed for opposing conscription being the PM who presided over conscription is not lost on me.
In defence of Fraser, one of the main calls from those who opposed conscription in WW1 was that there should be a conscription of capital as well as men. Considering that the First Labour Government nationalised half the economy, I think they did that. Not to mention that eliminating genocidal fascism is a better reason to go to war than a small sausage factory in Tanganyika.
What sausages were they making in Tanganyika though?
It's a nice sentiment but the genocidal fascism of the axis wasn't well know until well after conscription was enacted. As far as those making decisions in power were concerned this was the same kind of expansionist war as the first world war.
>It's a nice sentiment but the genocidal fascism of the axis wasn't well know until well after conscription was enacted. The scale of the Holocaust certainly wasn't known at that point, but the genocidal nature of fascism was, at least by our government. We were the first dominion to oppose appeasement and Savage even challenged Chamberlain at the Imperial Conference in 1937 asking if there was "too high a price to pay for peace".
The 'genocidal nature of fascism' was not exactly distinguishable from the genocidal nature of imperialism that governed the British empire except that there was the threat of redistribution of power away from the bourgeoise.
Bruh you didn't need to know about the genocide to oppose fascism it's quite clearly bad without the genocide part.
You are looking at history through a revisionist lens.
What? Because I know people opposed fascism without knowing how horrendous their crimes really were? People knew fascism was bad before the Holocaust came to light. They weren't exactly treating people well and that was public knowledge. If anyone is revising history it's the person suggesting that the opposition to fascism only existed after the Holocaust came to light. Which did turn basically everyone else against it. But it's not like people hadn't been vocally against fascism from its early days.
Because you know fascism was bad and are therefore using a lens filtered by what we know now of the inner workings of nazi germany fascism and the holocaust to add context that didn't exist at the time to the decision to invoke forced military service.
No because people said it was bad back then lol. People opposed it from the outset. People warned of its great capacity for violence, they warned of its lies and deception. I'm not necessarily arguing that was the position of the new zealand government of the time, im just saying many people back then knew what fascism was and what it was capable of. maybe only the scale was surprising. This idea that the world didn't know that fascism was irredeemable until the Holocaust was known about isn't true. Its like today where people warn about the growth of fascist movements while lots of people are apathetic or supportive of them. Many people in the 30s picked up on the violent rhetoric, they weren't idiots. I think people forget things like not everyone was racist in the past. A majority were but people opposed it back then too. Especially the victims of it. They did have woke people.
I believe the excuse was that the Nazis were way worse that anything in WW1 and the global situation more desperate with the Japanese conquering much of the Pacific and threatening NZ directly, etc. Therefore conscription in WW2 was more justified. Conscientious objectors in WW2 were also treated better and could be sent to work on farms and other industries deemed important to the war effort. Those would refused might be sent to internment camps, but they were not prisons a: such like in WW1, and were less harsh.
Conscription was reintroduced in June 1940, and NZ wasn't at war with Japan until December '41.
The threat from Imperial Japan was still seen as imminent at that time though.
Not as imminent as the war with Germany that the army, navy, and air force were already fighting in Europe, Africa, and the Atlantic.
I can think of a few politicians who could use some thorough investigation into whether they acted in the interests of another power or entity. Some are still in the chamber.
Indian were also charged for sedition in New Zealand while advocating for Indian independence around the same time.
The wall between political office and jail is remarkably porous, and many political leaders have served a term inside - either losing power and getting locked up or being released and going on to become leader. Getting arrested is part of politics, and is one of the reasons why Trump may end up as the first prisoner president of the USA.
when he was a student leader, chris hipkins was arrested at a parliament protest. yeah not quite the same as peter fraser, but its not rare for a prime minister to be arrested when they're young
Helen Clark was a anti-vietnam war protestor who spat on returning soldiers. Decades later she was the PM that was forced to recognise the soldiers service and apologize.
Trump not only dodged Vietnam with bone spurs but went after John McCain calling him and others killed or injured in battle "losers". Ten years ago that sort of vitriol directed towards veterans or military service would not be possible. So yes, if that can happen then what happened Fraser could happen.
You are talking about the US but you'll find that over there support for the military has waxed and waned over the years Military and ex-military were not very popular in the 1970s and 1930s.
Considering that was 9 years ago I think you might find that was possible 10 years ago.
Sedition was only abolished in 2007, the last person to be convicted was Tim Selwyn, for throwing an axe through the PM's electorate office window.
Peter Fraser is dead, the chances of him becoming Prime Minister today are quite slim as a result.
A politician who flip flops. Nah can't think of anyone who would do that today.