AH Challenge: Australia is a Great Power
- Thread starter Mr J
- Start date
Aozhouhuaren
Banned
Welcome to The Board, Its great we have another person from my neck of the woods.
WEll I'm not sure about Great Power, but I heard John Gorton in the late 60's had a plan to start manufacturing nuclear weapons due the Communist threat in Asia. If that plan was continued, the possible Australia could become a nuclear power. If Australia also maintain hold onto Papua New Guinea and helped to improve its infrastructure and keeping friendly relations with those in power, It may be able to exploit its vast resource wealth, thus having a Vassal state theoretically as well as being a more prosperous nation
The problem with Australia, is the area of arable land we have, we are not capable of supporting vast populations without seriously screwing up our environment, therefore Australia has to rely on innovation and education to maintain its place in the world.
If Australia maintained National Service, it could possibly have many more troops thus being capable of bigger power projection. Beyond on that, I'm not sure Australia could become a superpower, it could become a mid-range power though.
Last edited:
Welcome to AH.Com Mr J!
Now some thoughts...
In the pre-1900 period (ie from 1788) Australia has a far greater number immigrats than the OTL. Ideally, the North American Loyalists could have come to Australia instead of going to Canada. That would establish a large population here long before 1800.
Likewise, during the mid-1800s, have immigrats come here from the German-British loyalists (ie those from Hanover) not to mention say exiles from the Confederacy after the American Civil War.
With a much larger population, especially people(s) of an industrious nature, have Australia join the industrial revolution, in the mid 1870s, & have a it establish a strong resources & secondary industrial sector by 1900.
In 1901 Australia becomes a republic severing ties with the UK. Australia thus pursues its own economic, foreign & defence polices, & so forth, in the interests of Australia instead of Britain & Empire.
After WWI Australia ignores the Washington Treaty ensuring that the navy becomes one of the strongest around. This strong navy, allied to the USA, becomes a major force in defeating the Japanese in WWII. Furthermore, WWII ensures that Australia's military growth becomes second to the USA throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
In the post-WWII period Australia continues, not only in its OTL interest in getting nukes, but unlike the OTL, actually goes on to do so. During the Cold War the development of ICBMs & SLBMs mirrors the USA albeit on a smaller scale akin to France or the UK.
It goes without saying that Australia is one of the permanent of the UN Security Council (since 1945) & has the 3rd or 4th stongest global economy.
Now some thoughts...
In the pre-1900 period (ie from 1788) Australia has a far greater number immigrats than the OTL. Ideally, the North American Loyalists could have come to Australia instead of going to Canada. That would establish a large population here long before 1800.
Likewise, during the mid-1800s, have immigrats come here from the German-British loyalists (ie those from Hanover) not to mention say exiles from the Confederacy after the American Civil War.
With a much larger population, especially people(s) of an industrious nature, have Australia join the industrial revolution, in the mid 1870s, & have a it establish a strong resources & secondary industrial sector by 1900.
In 1901 Australia becomes a republic severing ties with the UK. Australia thus pursues its own economic, foreign & defence polices, & so forth, in the interests of Australia instead of Britain & Empire.
After WWI Australia ignores the Washington Treaty ensuring that the navy becomes one of the strongest around. This strong navy, allied to the USA, becomes a major force in defeating the Japanese in WWII. Furthermore, WWII ensures that Australia's military growth becomes second to the USA throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
In the post-WWII period Australia continues, not only in its OTL interest in getting nukes, but unlike the OTL, actually goes on to do so. During the Cold War the development of ICBMs & SLBMs mirrors the USA albeit on a smaller scale akin to France or the UK.
It goes without saying that Australia is one of the permanent of the UN Security Council (since 1945) & has the 3rd or 4th stongest global economy.
NomadicSky
Banned
With all those loyalists going to OZ there will be many diffrent people born that will have a huge effect on Canada it might be more fracophic in ttl.
Which makes for an interesting change in Canadian history wherein a major domain of the British Empire is basically French in nature. Maybe there'll be some offer, in the mid-1800s, to hand back at least Quebec, to France in order to further favour with the French during the Crimean War.
Well, you could have a "Japan goes wild scenario", in which the Japanese empire become a brutal, savage, racist evil empire by the early 20th century. The Japanese conquest would send hundreds of thousands of refugees to Australia, creating a greater population and even some economic growth. Japan and Australia would have a few wars of their own (resulting in military prowess), the last one being WW2 Pacific Campaign.
And nowadays, you'd have an Indonesia, a Philliphines, a Malaya, and a French Indochina looking back favorably upon the liberation and occupation they had by the Australian big brothers. With a growing sense of destiny and responsibility, the Asutralians develop nuclear weapons and a massive navy.
Da End.
And nowadays, you'd have an Indonesia, a Philliphines, a Malaya, and a French Indochina looking back favorably upon the liberation and occupation they had by the Australian big brothers. With a growing sense of destiny and responsibility, the Asutralians develop nuclear weapons and a massive navy.
Da End.
Larrikin
Banned
Oz as a a Great Power
I don't think it is possible, but what would be possible would be to give Australia a much larger population and greater industrialization at the start of the 20th C.
If Cook, on either his First or Third voyages, had discovered Bass Strait (he was either side of it) and the first colony was established on the north coast of said Strait. Port Jackson was established in an attempt to replace the naval stores situation that the Empire had lost due to US independence. What Britain was looking for was a source of naval stores that was in their control, and available all year round, even if it took longer in transit.
Prior to the end of the Seven Years War much of Britain's naval stores come from North America, and much of the rest came from the Baltic. With the loss of NA's all year round ports, and the continuing possibility of interdiction of the Kattegat and Skagerakk Britain required another source.
Unfortunately, Port Jackson and the Sydney Basin are absolutely useless as sources of naval stores. However, what is now Gippsland in Victoria would have been a great source, it would have been between 3 and 8 weeks closer time wise, and just to top it off, about the time Blaxland, Wentworth, and Lawson were finding a land route out of the Sydney Basin (1812) they would probably have been finding gold in the central highlands of Victoria.
By the time news of this discovery got back to England the Napoleonic Wars were ending, England was in serious need of an injection of bullion into her vaults, and there were tens of thousands of veteran soldiers who had no other careers or training, and lots and lots of ships that were about to be laid up and sailors thrown ashore. Can we say gold rush, folks.
Additionally, the first few years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars saw a series of poor crop years with much hardship across all of Europe. This would have been another incentive for a population influx, especially if Britain was providing and subsidizing transport.
With a major population influx added to shipping construction along the coast of Bass Strait, and the availability of coal, iron, copper, tin, lead, etc within the area would have provided a strong basis for a rapid industrialization. When gold was discovered in 1949 in California much of the mining population and supplies would have come from Australia, as it would have been quicker and cheaper to bring them from there than the US east coast and Europe.
I don't think it is possible, but what would be possible would be to give Australia a much larger population and greater industrialization at the start of the 20th C.
If Cook, on either his First or Third voyages, had discovered Bass Strait (he was either side of it) and the first colony was established on the north coast of said Strait. Port Jackson was established in an attempt to replace the naval stores situation that the Empire had lost due to US independence. What Britain was looking for was a source of naval stores that was in their control, and available all year round, even if it took longer in transit.
Prior to the end of the Seven Years War much of Britain's naval stores come from North America, and much of the rest came from the Baltic. With the loss of NA's all year round ports, and the continuing possibility of interdiction of the Kattegat and Skagerakk Britain required another source.
Unfortunately, Port Jackson and the Sydney Basin are absolutely useless as sources of naval stores. However, what is now Gippsland in Victoria would have been a great source, it would have been between 3 and 8 weeks closer time wise, and just to top it off, about the time Blaxland, Wentworth, and Lawson were finding a land route out of the Sydney Basin (1812) they would probably have been finding gold in the central highlands of Victoria.
By the time news of this discovery got back to England the Napoleonic Wars were ending, England was in serious need of an injection of bullion into her vaults, and there were tens of thousands of veteran soldiers who had no other careers or training, and lots and lots of ships that were about to be laid up and sailors thrown ashore. Can we say gold rush, folks.
Additionally, the first few years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars saw a series of poor crop years with much hardship across all of Europe. This would have been another incentive for a population influx, especially if Britain was providing and subsidizing transport.
With a major population influx added to shipping construction along the coast of Bass Strait, and the availability of coal, iron, copper, tin, lead, etc within the area would have provided a strong basis for a rapid industrialization. When gold was discovered in 1949 in California much of the mining population and supplies would have come from Australia, as it would have been quicker and cheaper to bring them from there than the US east coast and Europe.
Riain
Banned
Have the Dutch find the land between Spencer Gulf and Pt Hicks between 1627 and 1642, including a bit of a foray up the Murray and into Port Phillip Bay. Have the Dutch bring out settlers and settle Australia from the mouth of the Murray inland 150 years before the 'First Fleet'. With a different pattern of settlement and earlier start we could be much furthr ahead of where we are now, but not a 'Great Power' in the class of Britian or France let alone the USA.
In a way, you could class Australia as a great power today- it is possible that a Japanese- Australian alliance will prove to be the bedrock of South- East Asian and Oceanian peace and stability... In addition, as others have said, it was probable at one stage that the country would become a nuclear- armed power- simply have the British uphold a truly joint nuclear programme.
Perhaps skirting on the fringe of irrealism, but perhaps a UNSC seat could go to Australia instead of France following the end of the Second World War? After all, France was really only given the seat (and it's German 'territory') because of Churchill's Francophile tendencies. Perhaps it would not be absurd that the international community recognised the strategic importance of the Australian state- it would take the place of Japan, if you will, from the LoN.
Perhaps skirting on the fringe of irrealism, but perhaps a UNSC seat could go to Australia instead of France following the end of the Second World War? After all, France was really only given the seat (and it's German 'territory') because of Churchill's Francophile tendencies. Perhaps it would not be absurd that the international community recognised the strategic importance of the Australian state- it would take the place of Japan, if you will, from the LoN.
Well, what I'm talking about gives Australia a much larger population by the start of the 20th C, and greater industrialization 20 years later.
I suspect strongly that this is the biggest single impediment to Australia being a larger, more powerful nation.
You know, WW3 might well be the best answer. If the US, China, Europe and the USSR are knocked down greatly (e.g. most of their industry destroyed), and a mini-Nuclear winter changed weather patterns (in particular, hurting agriculture in the northern hemisphere, but increasing rain fall in Australia), you could see Australia becoming a major power. By the time the weather patterns straightened out, they could import food from NAm in exchange for 'high tech'. Maybe.
Well a Mediam power is ok. I just got the terms mixed up.
When I learnt international relations, Australia was called as a medium power, similar in rank to South Korea, the Netherlands and Canada. Definitely toward the bottom end of that grouping, but not outside it. Gareth Evans wrote a good book on the subject about ten to fifteen years ago, but I don't know what the most current thinking would be.
Your terminology was correct initially, in my view, so please don't be embarrassed. If we are wrong, we are wrong together. A great power would be one,IMO, that could act with global consequence, into which I would bunch the French, the Russians, the British, the Indians, the Japanese and the Chinese. Beyond great power the rank of superpower, and there's only one qualifier for that job nowadays.
-New Zealand joins in 1901
-More immigration perhaps from WWI refugees (or pre-1900)
-Rail links to the entire continent by 1910
-WWI gives Australia the whole of Hollandia; maybe they buy Irian Jaya from the Dutch
-Earlier development of native military-industrial complex
-Wartime army proves pivotal and navy is large enough to liberate Indonesia, Signapore, Thailand, and aid in liberation of other areas. Perhaps they also send divisions to Europe to help liberation efforts there. Postwar they occupy most of SE Asia between Burma, Hanoi, New Guinea, Formosa, Port Moresby, and most areas in between
-Papua New Guinea joins as state in 1950, Irian Jaya in 1955, Micronesia (occupied Rabaul/Solomons/etc) in 1960 while much if SE Asia become satellites of Canberra; East Timor as protectorate
-Launch of carriers under Aussie flag with at least four still in service
-Development of ICBM capability with York Peninsula launching satellites if not a manned program, maybe even a space station or underwater colony (or a moon landing?)
-Population of at least 50 million including the new states
-Armed forces of at least 1 million by 1990
-Participates in international peackeeping missions, maybe as an independent force
-Aussies develop underwater agriculture/mining for shallow water areas
That at least puts them in the first-tier level with minimal dispute
-More immigration perhaps from WWI refugees (or pre-1900)
-Rail links to the entire continent by 1910
-WWI gives Australia the whole of Hollandia; maybe they buy Irian Jaya from the Dutch
-Earlier development of native military-industrial complex
-Wartime army proves pivotal and navy is large enough to liberate Indonesia, Signapore, Thailand, and aid in liberation of other areas. Perhaps they also send divisions to Europe to help liberation efforts there. Postwar they occupy most of SE Asia between Burma, Hanoi, New Guinea, Formosa, Port Moresby, and most areas in between
-Papua New Guinea joins as state in 1950, Irian Jaya in 1955, Micronesia (occupied Rabaul/Solomons/etc) in 1960 while much if SE Asia become satellites of Canberra; East Timor as protectorate
-Launch of carriers under Aussie flag with at least four still in service
-Development of ICBM capability with York Peninsula launching satellites if not a manned program, maybe even a space station or underwater colony (or a moon landing?)
-Population of at least 50 million including the new states
-Armed forces of at least 1 million by 1990
-Participates in international peackeeping missions, maybe as an independent force
-Aussies develop underwater agriculture/mining for shallow water areas
That at least puts them in the first-tier level with minimal dispute
The key to the development of Australia is the environment. Which is marginal: unreliable rainfall (read about the development of sheep stations in South Australia during the second half of 19th century: a few years of above-average rainfall expanded inland the "useful" territory, then the rains went back to normal, or below it, and the expansion failed). Plus Australian soil is quite poorish, and old, very old: it has not been renewed by glaciations, nor by volcanism.
J. Diamond does a good analysis of the marginality of the australian environment in Collapse (which is a book I do recommend as a must-read).
20 millions are already quite close to the total sustainable Australian capacity (a lot of people believe that they are already beyond sustainability).
Australians are rich, can stay rich in the foreseeable future, but they cannot become a super-power. And we need a big reliable friend in case some bogey comes out of Asia.
I will go one further: Australian states being co-opted in the USA is much more likely (by a couple of order of magnitudes at least) than Australia becoming a super-power.
J. Diamond does a good analysis of the marginality of the australian environment in Collapse (which is a book I do recommend as a must-read).
20 millions are already quite close to the total sustainable Australian capacity (a lot of people believe that they are already beyond sustainability).
Australians are rich, can stay rich in the foreseeable future, but they cannot become a super-power. And we need a big reliable friend in case some bogey comes out of Asia.
I will go one further: Australian states being co-opted in the USA is much more likely (by a couple of order of magnitudes at least) than Australia becoming a super-power.