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.
Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
The steel mills limited the production of armaments, specificially ships which required large sheets of steel whereas most other equipment needed smaller, denser pieces of steel. The large item, apart from sheets for ships, were the Sentinel Cruiser tanks, which used cast armour. These were quite large, as individual castings, indeed they were when formed, the largest pieces of cast armour produced in the world, apart from ships. Small arms were adequately catered for. They used steel from Newcastle or Woolongong. A new steel mill was created at Whyalla in South Australia and it took it's iron ore from the nearby Iron Knob source. Ships would sail from Newcastle/Woolongong loaded with coke and return with steel from Whyalla. Whyalla also built small ships such as corvettes and sloops.
The problem with the early introduction of conscription in Australia were the bitterly fought referenda which defeated the idea of conscription for WWI service. The Australian Government was well aware of the feelings those plans invoked in the Australian population who felt it was perfectly OK for people to enlist and serve overseas but it was not OK to compel them via conscription. Two referenda were fought over the issue, narrowly being defeated each time. Interestingly, members of the AIF in France and Palestine voted overwhelmingly against the idea. The Australian Government only reintroduced it in 1940 for home service (including overseas territories such as PNG), later increasing it's scope to "south of the equator" and then "south of 15 degrees north of the equator" according to the legislation. The existential threat of Japanese invasion was enough motivation to allow that. The Australian Government again learnt about how divisive conscription could be in 1965 when it re-introduced the idea because of the danger of conflict with Indonesia and for use in South Vietnam. It was not popular. The war in Vietnam was reasonably popular and Australian involvement but the problem was forcing people to fight there. It divided Australian society. A legacy that lasts to today. NO major political party is interested in re-introducing conscription in peacetime Australia.
The problem with the early introduction of conscription in Australia were the bitterly fought referenda which defeated the idea of conscription for WWI service. The Australian Government was well aware of the feelings those plans invoked in the Australian population who felt it was perfectly OK for people to enlist and serve overseas but it was not OK to compel them via conscription. Two referenda were fought over the issue, narrowly being defeated each time. Interestingly, members of the AIF in France and Palestine voted overwhelmingly against the idea. The Australian Government only reintroduced it in 1940 for home service (including overseas territories such as PNG), later increasing it's scope to "south of the equator" and then "south of 15 degrees north of the equator" according to the legislation. The existential threat of Japanese invasion was enough motivation to allow that. The Australian Government again learnt about how divisive conscription could be in 1965 when it re-introduced the idea because of the danger of conflict with Indonesia and for use in South Vietnam. It was not popular. The war in Vietnam was reasonably popular and Australian involvement but the problem was forcing people to fight there. It divided Australian society. A legacy that lasts to today. NO major political party is interested in re-introducing conscription in peacetime Australia.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Yeah but they didn't need 100 divisions either. Australia's population at the end of 1935 was 6.75 million. Roughly, really roughly, you might have 40-50,000 men reaching maturity each year. Many wouldn't be eligible for conscription for a range of reasons. I believe the average was around one in two, but maybe less. Still, gives you 20-25,000 a year that you could sign up, and at mobilisation it wouldn't be unreasonable to sustain an army of more than 250,000 - maybe nine divisions.
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.
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. 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.
Well, what is the "twitch"? Maybe this is where the OP really needs to provide more clarity on how much more concerned the Australian and New Zealand governments were by the threat of Japan. I, and evidently others, take it to mean that it would be a level of concern sufficient to make for some significant policy changes. Otherwise, what's the point in the thread? You, on the other hand, just seem to want to go on and on about historical attitudes to conscription, which, you know, is not telling at least some of us anything we didn't already know. On another note though, "Australian people weren't that concerned about Japan"? Really? Interesting perspective. Not really in line with the "Yellow Peril" thinking that still comes out every now and then.
Additional followups:
1. In what years were the steel and aluminum mills built in OTL? My underlying question being in what year they would be available to start with domestic rearmament plans?
2. Can someone speak to the OTL milita structures as well? Number of men? Location? Service length? Training received? Etc.?
Thank you again, M.
1. In what years were the steel and aluminum mills built in OTL? My underlying question being in what year they would be available to start with domestic rearmament plans?
2. Can someone speak to the OTL milita structures as well? Number of men? Location? Service length? Training received? Etc.?
Thank you again, M.
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?
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.
Hmm the idea of Von Spee sending his force to raid along the Australian coast instead of making for the Atlantic does seem interesting. How extensive were Australian coastal defenses during the war/early war. Having a German flotilla show up and sail down the coast burning ports as they go would probably change Australian priorities interwar.
As I may have said earlier in thread or similar threads - NZ is in an awkward place. Whilst NZ historically didn't have quite the issues with Conscription that other Dominions had, it was still a massive issue.
The people who ran NZ from 1935 cut their teeth in WW1 fighting conscription. At least 1 had been jailed in WW1 for opposing it - Fraser. He later became PM in 1940 and of course had to run conscription during WW2. But getting that done pre WW2 is extremely hard.
The people who ran NZ from 1935 cut their teeth in WW1 fighting conscription. At least 1 had been jailed in WW1 for opposing it - Fraser. He later became PM in 1940 and of course had to run conscription during WW2. But getting that done pre WW2 is extremely hard.
Mark1878
Donor
All this re conscription. Lets be realistic.
Apart from the cold War. When did anywhere in the British Common wealth have conscription except during war and even then how long after the start.
Conscription in British derived areas just won't happen except in extremism. So in Australia and NZ only a direct threat by Japan will allow it. This is no matter which main line politician is in power
Apart from the cold War. When did anywhere in the British Common wealth have conscription except during war and even then how long after the start.
Conscription in British derived areas just won't happen except in extremism. So in Australia and NZ only a direct threat by Japan will allow it. This is no matter which main line politician is in power
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?
The problem with van Spee attacking Australian coastline is that it is largely empty. Most of the major ports had established defences. Most of it related back to the fear of Russian raids during the Crimean War. Russian fleet and supply ships sailing from Europe to Vladivostok sailed down the Atlantic across the Southern Ocean and up the Pacific, straight past Australia. Melbourne was a particular concern, with several millions of Pounds in gold in it's vaults from the gold rush which was occurring at the same time. This result in defences around the bay, in Adelaide (another location of a lot of gold carried overland from Ballarat) and Sydney town. Perth also had defences at Fremantle (again because of gold bullion held there). The rest of the country was largely undefend and that was because it was largely empty. Only along the NE coast of Queensland were there a succession of minor ports of any real value. The troops that manned the defences were from the regular Australian Army by WWI. It was a minor force, even in WWII. The overwhelming majority of Australia's military were volunteer from the Militia (roughly equivalent to the UK's Territorials or the US's National Guard). Indeed the modern Australian Army was only established post-WWII in 1946 with the creation of the Royal Australia Regiment the first regular infantry force. Von Spee would have found a lot of empty land to bombard and a few well defended ports. He would have been pretty much running on empty without any real recoaling possible from Australian sources.
The Australian Militia forces were initially a bit of a social club for the colonials. They formed the basis for the AIF for service in the Middle East, Gallipoli and Europe. They were by 1914 training much harder than they had during the Boer War. Australia had, had conscription upon it's establishment in 1901 - for home service. It had consisted of several months initial training and then service in the Militia. It hadn't been popular and it hadn't been well attended. It was seen as a bit of a joke and basically discontinued as a budget measure in 1911. Then came WWI - which I have already discussed from a conscription perspective.
The Australian Militia forces were initially a bit of a social club for the colonials. They formed the basis for the AIF for service in the Middle East, Gallipoli and Europe. They were by 1914 training much harder than they had during the Boer War. Australia had, had conscription upon it's establishment in 1901 - for home service. It had consisted of several months initial training and then service in the Militia. It hadn't been popular and it hadn't been well attended. It was seen as a bit of a joke and basically discontinued as a budget measure in 1911. Then came WWI - which I have already discussed from a conscription perspective.
Biggest problem with a bit of local excitement in WWI is that it had been planned for. Japan is an ally. The Australian fleet unit exists. OTL the RN wiped out all the raiders in a year and it hard to imagine that not happening. The system works and it works well.
Maybe some kind of Lettow-Vorbeck tooling around PNG?
Maybe some kind of Lettow-Vorbeck tooling around PNG?