Waaaahhhhhhhhhh!I would guess @Father Maryland hails from that state that bears his name. Makes me wonder if he is also a father in the ecclesiastical sense.
Waaaahhhhhhhhhh!I would guess @Father Maryland hails from that state that bears his name. Makes me wonder if he is also a father in the ecclesiastical sense.
I believe you're second to Canadians. But you're close.If I may say we may be the single most humble people in the entire universe.
Snipped
It's 1933 and the governments of Australia and New Zealand are getting twitchy about the ambitions of the Empire of Japan. You are tasked with making recommendations for how their militaries can prepare for a potential war. It is of course assumed that the Mother Country will be fighting alongside them but it is requested that they are able to rely on their own resources as much as possible and steps be taken to maximise the input of local industrial capacity.
Did anyone bring up the populations of Australia and New Zealand at this time period? I think to combine it was something in the 8 million range? Combine they fielded less than 2 million troops? Good to have all these arms but you need troops to use them.
I am making the point that without an existential threat, Australian Political Parties are loath to introduce conscription. Between the wars there was a decided anti-conscripton for overseas service. How the ALP overcame that was a clear existential threat and a gradual introduction of conscription. It is easy to say they "introduce conscription" that however shows a sad misunderstanding of what the national sentiment on the matter was. Australians simply didn't accept a need for conscription before the Japanese war clouds gathered on the horizon and only reluctantly accepted it when they were forced into it. They didn't perceive a German or Italian threat to the homeland. Simple as that, really.While I largely agree, naturally, on the history of conscription in Australia, a discussion we've had before in this thread, the OP needs to be taken into account.
Now this could be much clearer, but I would think that the implication is the governments are more twitchy than they historically were. Otherwise you have no driver for change. I'm happy for the OP to correct me. But I really feel if you don't posit changes to the historical in attitudes, thinking, decision-making, whatever then you can hardly entertain changes to what occurred.
So, labouring under that view, it would be perfectly reasonable - if not arguably obvious - for the "twitchier" governments to introduce conscription / national service earlier, and particularly because the historical line in the sand - that conscripts would only be used in the defence of Australian territory - could be drawn at the outset because this was the threat they had in mind.
If they did go down this path, what might it look like? One option would be similar to the historical British practice (which began in early 1939) of six-months full-time service followed by service for a number of years in the reserve, with periodic training. If this had begun in Australia in, say, early 1935 and took in maybe 25,000 men a year you could have a trained army reserve of more than 100,000 at the outbreak of WW2.
Now, at that point you have the problem that the law wouldn't allow you to deploy conscripts overseas. The best way around this would be call up your reserves, designate units for deployment, but give conscripts the option of opting out. If they don't, they're considered a volunteer. Some won't like that because it peer pressure will come into the equation, but it might be enough to get around any opposition. Otherwise, worse case, you just take volunteers from your trained reserve and form new units.
Either way, when Japan enters the war, Australia would be in a much stronger position, with perhaps the equivalent of a corps at home, trained and equipped, ready for deployment. That doesn't mean events will necessarily go more its way early on, but it may alleviate the panicky demands for the return of the 2nd AIF from the European theatre.
I am making the point that without an existential threat, Australian Political Parties are loath to introduce conscription. Between the wars there was a decided anti-conscripton for overseas service. How the ALP overcame that was a clear existential threat and a gradual introduction of conscription. It is easy to say they "introduce conscription" that however shows a sad misunderstanding of what the national sentiment on the matter was. Australians simply didn't accept a need for conscription before the Japanese war clouds gathered on the horizon and only reluctantly accepted it when they were forced into it. They didn't perceive a German or Italian threat to the homeland. Simple as that, really.
The point I was making was that a mere "twitch" would not be sufficient to buck that trend of being anti-conscription. The wounds from the two referenda in WWI were too deep. The Catholics under Arch-Bishop Mannix remembered the 1916 uprising in Dublin and the possibility that in the future, Australian troops could be used in a similar circumstance overseas, if they were compelled to serve. The Irish remember those events as well. The Anglicans weren't that interested in serving to oppress foreigners - another thread running through Australian society. Australian people weren't that concerned about Japan. They were suspicious of their motives but they weren't worried they were going to be coming ashore unannounced at Bondi in the morning. There were paper editors who believed we might be at war with Japan but was over the horizon. The point being, you need an existential thread to shake Australians up sufficiently for them to accept conscription. A "twitch" doesn't constitute one IMO.I appreciate you were giving people a history lesson. For my own part, and likely some others here, it's not required, but that's neither here nor there. The problem is you didn't relate your point to the OP. What do you think the OP means when he says the Australian and New Zealand governments were getting twitchy? Surely, you would take it to mean more concerned than they were historical? Thus, there is a reason to do things differently than historical, and conscription to bolster the reserve/militia (call it what you will) is one obvious route.
The point I was making was that a mere "twitch" would not be sufficient to buck that trend of being anti-conscription.
I imagine if some of Von Spee's ships paid Australia a visit and chucked a few rounds inland the RAN would have a higher priority.So it seems like the biggest barrier by a large margin to the Anzac's militarizing earlier and maintaining a larger military is a combination of politics and popular opinion. Seems like their needs to be a more recent example within living memory of Australia being directly attacked.
Their were a number of German cruisers and AMC raiders near Australian waters during WW1 and I believe Nauru was once heavily raided. The AMC's seemed to have been largely unsuccessful in Australian waters with one early in the war ending up running out of coal and getting interned in Guam. So perhaps have one or two of those AMC's raid the more isolated bits of the Australian coast (Sort of like how British Columbia was raided in the "Remember the Rainbow" TL.). How extensive were Australian coastal defenses in WW1 especially early in the war. Could say one of those AMC's have sailed into Darwin harbor and shelled the town while burning or sinking any shipping they find?
An active example of Australia being directly attacked might help allow for the politics shift to Australia maintaining a more capable defense in the Interwar period?
I imagine if some of Von Spee's ships paid Australia a visit and chucked a few rounds inland the RAN would have a higher priority.
HMAS Australia might put a stop to that, but then again if she did she might earn far more support for funding/keeping her or replacement cruisers come 20s/30s?So it seems like the biggest barrier by a large margin to the Anzac's militarizing earlier and maintaining a larger military is a combination of politics and popular opinion. Seems like their needs to be a more recent example within living memory of Australia being directly attacked.
Their were a number of German cruisers and AMC raiders near Australian waters during WW1 and I believe Nauru was once heavily raided. The AMC's seemed to have been largely unsuccessful in Australian waters with one early in the war ending up running out of coal and getting interned in Guam. So perhaps have one or two of those AMC's raid the more isolated bits of the Australian coast (Sort of like how British Columbia was raided in the "Remember the Rainbow" TL.). How extensive were Australian coastal defenses in WW1 especially early in the war. Could say one of those AMC's have sailed into Darwin harbor and shelled the town while burning or sinking any shipping they find?
An active example of Australia being directly attacked might help allow for the politics shift to Australia maintaining a more capable defense in the Interwar period?