Abstract:
The Royal New Zealand Navy celebrated its 75th Anniversary in 2016. And yet in 2011 and 2012 the Royal Australian and Canadian navies respectively celebrated their 100th anniversaries. This thesis looks at first two decades of the twentieth century to explain why this is the case, and to try and find an understanding as to why the Royal New Zealand Navy was not founded as a separate force until twenty years after its Australian and Canadian counterparts. I will argue that the main reasons for this situation lie with three major trends, which explained the differences and similarities. First was a prior history of colonial interest and investment in the field of local naval defence, such as the colonial navies of Australia and the HMS Charybdis of Canada, whilst New Zealand continued to rely on British forces. Secondly was strong pressure from both naval officers and politicians oftentimes working in tandem to keep the issue at the forefront of politics and public opinion. Australia’s Creswell and Canada’s Brodeur are the two key players there, and again New Zealand politicians chose not to follow suit. Finally was a public will to take affairs into their own hands and make defence of home waters a local, as opposed to an Empire matter. There was no such public will in New Zealand. By examining Australia, Canada and New Zealand through these three trends, we can explain why Australia and Canada founded navies of their own before World War I while New Zealand did not. It will be argued that New Zealand remained loyal to the ‘Mother Country’ and considered it more cost effective to support the Royal Navy. This thesis is unique in attempting to compare the naval histories of these three countries.
