The Statute of Westminister (1931) transferred legislative independence to the self-governing dominions, including responsibility for foreign affairs. Although NZ, Australia, Canada and South Africa formally ratified the SoW at different times (in NZ’s case, 1947), for practical purposes it took effect immediately. This is why, for example, NZ was able to impose limitations on the employment of its land forces (Freyberg’s Charter).

The self-governing dominions all declared war at different times: in NZ’s case, effectively at the same time as Britain. Australia followed shortly after, and Canada and South Africa a week or so later.

If NZ and the Aussies were not too keen on the idea in 39 maybe they had bloody good reason.
Look up the overall casualty rates for Australia and NZ compared with Britain’s
per head of population for WW1

And as it turned out they were bloody right to be wary, what did Churchill tell Freyberg when our troops were on their way to Greece, oh yes, you will see plenty of aircraft overhead.
They did, every bloody one of them German.

Really, DPF. Tell that to the peoples of Poland and Finland.

FWIW, the UN regards WW2 as having started in 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria. That’s why China was invited to be the first country to sign the UN Charter in 1945.

Talking of Labour and WW2, are there any Labour supporters left who are prepared to deny that that great NZ nationalist, Norman Eric Kirk was a draft-dodger in WW2?

I think it is fair to remember that many leaders would have not forgotten the grim toll of WW1. Senior NZ government members were jailed for opposing conscription in WW1, and would later wear the mantle of reponsibility for maintaining our war effort. It was only 20 years earlier that WW1 had ended, (think back to 1989 – it isnt that long ago) so I think the passage of time now dulls for us the sheer horror that many leaders must have been experiencing to the possibility of a repeat of WW1, which had ended only 20 years earlier. Also should not forget that some of the senior members of the British Cabinet were leaning towards opening negotiations after Poland fell. Even after Churchill succeeded Chamberlain, Lord Halifax was regarded as being weak on the war policy and was shipped off to Washington, due to his association with the policy of appeasement.

Putting that aside, NZ did its bit prior to the fall of France in 1940 and was never in a position to do much more. The real capability for taking offensive action was firstly with France and secondly with the UK. As noted by one other poster HM(NZ)S Achilles played an important role in the battle of the River Plate in December 1939. German raiders were preying on shipping in this part of the world too.

The real war did not start with Churchill being appointed PM either. The Norway campaign was before this. The Allies (France and UK) were not playing, they were just inept. Perhaps if France had gone on the offensive asap after the declaration of war Germany wouldn’t have been able to launch the Blitzkrieg on the western front.

I think to promote partisan political alignments idealogies of 2009 in the discussion of responding to this information from 1939 is daft.

The law around trade / contracts being void in war was well established, so I really wonder about the research….Look forward to reading it.

However, I’m not so sure that the NZ Government’s declaration of war was superfluous, as some posts have said. Our trade with the UK would have been worth a lot more than trade with Germany, plus cultural links, etc would in my view mean the declaration was a deliberate act and not symbolic nor automatic.

So – perhaps the phoney war is the key to reading and understanding any documents that support the results of this story. The French and the British were hoping that a hot war wouldn’t happen after the fall of Poland, in which case for NZ officials keeping the possibility of resumption of trade with Germany was quite logical, but, in hindsight, also naive.

On Labour more generally I thought I’d point out David Low was a Labour supporter.

Yeah – unless you have a rather rose-tinted view of history and think all NZ’s people and institutions were morally pure and staunchly anti-fascist I can’t see this being a surprise to anyone.

I’d say Labour’s (and most of the other parties’) credentials on standing up to tyranny are better displayerd by the China and ASEAN free trade agreements. If we’ll sit down and sign up to a deal with the Burmese regime today, why would a weakness in standing up to Hitler in ‘39 come as a surprise?

Must be a slow news week…

I don’t doubt the research by the way, although I think they are stretching claims to say that we all assume that we were rabidly pro-war – some of us have actually read some already published histories which address this very issue, specifically via tendency toward NZ’s adhering to and pushing the League of Nations’ line.

But what really amuses me about the content of this thread is the fact that no-one is suggesting that an equivalent tory government wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing in the post WWI environment… Doesn’t register due to the default Labour=bad blinkers I suppose… how dreary…

conflagration.

The machinations of all the politicos of the time, the World over were seeded with bitter experience, or a wish to throw off Colonialism.

Hitler was hell bent on his Master Plan. But for the Commonwealth, and the Yanks then the World could easily have been dominated for a 1000 years by the madness of National Socialism.

Orwell figured there would be 3 main power blocks post war had the `Germans won. Probably about right.

Hitler was never going to be able to take the US, and Japan was always going to be an uneasy ally.

Thank God for the magnificent bravery of so many, to let us enjoy these prosperous times.

Recession? Er No. Mismanagement through Greed. And a necessary correction in the working capital Base.

A couple of things:

DPF, you said the war didn’t start for real until 1940. Are you forgetting about the Battle of the River Plate, 13 December 1939? Our boys in HMS Achilles were in the thick of it.

Indeed. My late Grandfather was on the Exeter. A few years before he died, he wrote an account of his time on board. Most interesting stuff! In fact, I have the battle to thank for my very existence! For the Exeter limped its way to the falklands where my Grandmother (a nurse) was working in the hospital.

The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany – implications for today? (Dr. Peter W. Becker)

For the first time I have seen “History” at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. – WWI General Max Hoffman.

PS. The US (Capitalist) had high level diplomatic contact with Hitler (Fascist) until Pearl Harbour in December 1941, and the Russians (Commie) sat back until they were invaded.

A bit like the anti nuclear movement in the west during the 70’s was funded by commie money, but suppressed at the communist home countries at the same time.

That fueled their blitzkreig.

And guess what: most of you have probably never heard of it.

Gee. Who’d've thunk.