Australian naval policy, 1919 to 1942 : a case study in Empire relations

Abstract

Australia’s sense of national identity has developed differently from most other nations which have emerged in the past two hundred years. Until the fall of Singapore, Australia’s development had been notable for the absence of trauma in relationships with the Mother Country. Australia has not been embroiled in war with the Mother Country to gain either cohesion or independence as was the case with the United States, the Mother Country was not so weak and subject to rival Powers that the Imperial relationship atrophied as with the South American nations, and Australia was not subject to the centrifugal influence of large, diverse ethnic groups as were both Canada and South Africa. Australia’s history has no dramatic ‘turning points’, only ‘milestones’ in a process of comparatively orderly development. Conservative elements consequently have an important role in Australia’s relationship with the Mother Country. Geographic location, the problems of distance as well as its strategic advantages, the racial and economic distinctness of the neighbouring peoples and Australia’s wealth, size and small population have acted to reinforce the filial ties, making naval defence a significant conservative element in the relationship. So long as the relationship evolved fast enough to accommodate Australia’s growing sense of nationalism, the benefits which flowed from membership of the British Empire outweighed the disadvantages and loyalty to Britain remained largely unchallenged. At the present juncture, when there is much discussion about Australia’s national identity and a widespread feeling that a more independent stance internationally is necessary, an understanding of the nature, effects and consequences of Australia’s former dependence on Britain is important. Examination of Australia’s naval policy sheds light upon the fundamental elements of that relationship, in particular the blend of loyalty, trust and self-assertion which characterised the Australian outlook during the inter-war period. Inevitably I have been drawn into assessing the effects on Australian development of dependence upon a protector. The balance of this thesis leans toward examining the difficulties and disadvantages of dependence rather than the advantages because the predominant opinion if the inter-war generations was overwhelmingly convinced of the advantages and these advantages are most apparent in retrospect and need to be examined. Nevertheless, I have not been convinced that dependence upon Britain for Australia’s ultimate protection was per se either unwise or inimical to Australia’s interests. In broad terms there was no realistic alternative. The real contention lies, not in the extremities of dependence or independence, but in the more subtle arena of the middle ground. For a small power, the benefits of reliance upon protection must be balanced against the accompanying loss of independence and jeopardising of peculiar national interests; acceptance of equipment, expertise and facilities must be balanced against maintenance of freedom of action. The cost of relationships with the rest of the world must be balanced against domestic need in the allocation of resources. In conduct of this relationship the outlook engendered in both Government and public opinion by the nature and level of dependencies of crucial importance in the small power’s perception of the advantages and problems of the relationship.