AHC: Swap the economic/political fates of Australia and Argentina

[Rush Tarquin]

The challenge is to exchange the broad strokes of Australia and Argentina's economic and political histories during the 20th century (oversimplification incoming: ie. stability and prosperity for Argentina, turmoil and frustration for Australia).

From the Armenian Genocide:

"During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income. By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita."

 

[Rush Tarquin]

Nada? Filler

 

[Dominic]

Saving Argentina's economy is probably not too difficult; avoiding all those military coups and perhaps some diversification would probably with a bit of luck leave them as wealthy as any Western country per capita. Giving Argentina's fate to Australia though seems a bit more difficult, especially in a world which allows for states to reach OTL Western levels of wealth as the question implies. Is Australia susceptible to military coups? Seems rather unlikely, though in the right circumstances probably possible. Maybe a more destructive pacific war? Australia just seems too stable and tied to the major world economies to knock over easily.

 

[Incognito]

Is Australia susceptible to military coups?

Well, there were these guys:

New Guard

The New Guard was a fascist movement in Australia formed in 1931.[1] It was opposed to communism and parliamentary democracy, called for class collaboration to replace class conflict, and engaged in street fighting against opponents and in plans for a coup d'état against the New South Wales State government of Premier Jack Lang.[1] It was led by Colonel Eric Campbell.[1]

The New Guard was founded in Sydney in February, 1931 by a group of concerned citizens, one of whom was Col. Eric Campbell, a First World War veteran asked to act as leader. Membership application forms set out the principles proclaimed by the New Guard: "Loyalty to the British Throne and support for the British Empire; Sane and honourable government in Australia; Suppression of disloyal/immoral elements in government, industry and society; Abolition of machine politics; Maintaining individual liberty."

Historical context

The stated ideology of the New Guard can be seen as a response to a perceived communist threat, given that one of the criticisms that was made of communism was that it took away individual freedom and was therefore antithetical to democracy. In the international context of the 1920s and 1930s, Joseph Stalin's rise to power in the Soviet Union was seen by critics of communism as further evidence of its dangers.

In addition, many First World War veterans viewed the Russian Bolshevik armistice and treaty with Germany as a betrayal of the Allies since it broke the 4 September 1914 Triple Entente agreement not to conclude a separate peace with Germany or Austria-Hungary. The revolution also went against the notion that subjects should remain loyal to their rulers. In any case, the agreement took Russia out of the war and allowed Germany to reallocate troops from the eastern front to the western front, making life more difficult for Australian troops. Anger over Russia's withdrawal led the other Triple Entente members to invade Russia in support of the Russian tsar.

The 1930s was also the decade of the Great Depression, which caused extreme hardship around the world. Financial hardship in Australia meant that the possibility of popular uprisings did not seem then as distant and remote as it would now. The name New Guard, then, suggests not only the idea of guarding a set of values but also physically guarding the community, if necessary, against revolution. There is certainly some irony in this, given that the organisation went on to plot the forcible removal of Premier Jack Lang from office.

.......

Attempted kidnapping and civil unrest

Less well known than de Groot's exploits on the Harbour Bridge are the attempts to kidnap Jack Lang while he was being chauffeured home along the Parramatta Road from his Parliament House office at night. This attempt was foiled because Lang had switched to a cheaper, older car and driven himself home. The plan had been to detain Lang in an unused gaol at Berrima, a village approximately 100km south-west of Sydney, stage a coup d'état and place NSW under martial law.

On the evening of the dismissal of Jack Lang by Governor Sir Philip Game on 13 May 1932, a brigade of several hundred men of the New Guard were stationed in the basement of a department store building several hundred metres from Parliament House. They had threatened to march upon Parliament House and stage another coup attempt if he did not resign before seven o'clock. Lang was sacked at six o'clock. A civil war might well have ensued had they attempted the coup, as important government buildings throughout the city of Sydney were being guarded by members of the Australian Labor Army and the New South Wales Police (legally responsible to the Crown through Governor Game but allegedly loyal to Lang's ministers). Certain Army officers, loyal to the Federal Government, were also members of the New Guard and might have been expected to bring out their troops in support of a coup.

 

[Sam R.]

Is Australia susceptible to military coups?

Highly. Monash himself organised a fascistic loyalist paramilitary apparatus in case of strife with Labour. The White Army, New and Old Guards were organised paramilitary powers.

The chief reason why such coups did not occur was that they weren't necessary.

Seems rather unlikely, though in the right circumstances probably possible.

Financial coups (Lang) and Crown coups (Whitlam) shut down extreme labourism.

The only military "coup" I can think of was organised by the ALP to stop the Communist Party lead radical labourite Miners strike in 1949. And that's more a coup of the "executive" against the so-called "Australian settlement."

Australia just seems too stable and tied to the major world economies to knock over easily.

The moment of risk in Australian society is _class_. Have Higgins be less Higgins and the Harvester award principles might not have been produced or recognised. To save a few pennies on the pound per week in 1907, the Employers could have bought themselves a debt of IWW style labour clashes. (I don't think Employers had the _choice_, btw.)

Which pushes the Australian POD on Harvester back to the 1880s. Muck up the formation of the ALP slightly and you might have idiot employers but more or less the same tendency to militancy over unacceptable living conditions during long booms.

This, of course, assumes that Argentina's problems were caused by class conflict rather than another source.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[Dominic]

Highly. Monash himself organised a fascistic loyalist paramilitary apparatus in case of strife with Labour. The White Army, New and Old Guards were organised paramilitary powers.

The chief reason why such coups did not occur was that they weren't necessary.



Financial coups (Lang) and Crown coups (Whitlam) shut down extreme labourism.

The only military "coup" I can think of was organised by the ALP to stop the Communist Party lead radical labourite Miners strike in 1949. And that's more a coup of the "executive" against the so-called "Australian settlement."



The moment of risk in Australian society is _class_. Have Higgins be less Higgins and the Harvester award principles might not have been produced or recognised. To save a few pennies on the pound per week in 1907, the Employers could have bought themselves a debt of IWW style labour clashes. (I don't think Employers had the _choice_, btw.)

Which pushes the Australian POD on Harvester back to the 1880s. Muck up the formation of the ALP slightly and you might have idiot employers but more or less the same tendency to militancy over unacceptable living conditions during long booms.

This, of course, assumes that Argentina's problems were caused by class conflict rather than another source.

yours,
Sam R.

Very interesting. My interwar Australian history is woefully lacking. As you say though, these coups didn't occur not because they were foiled but because they weren't necessary. Concocting the necessary conditions would seem as you say to require an early POD. Class conflict though? Australia's never had a particularly strong upper class, and while the working/middle class competition has a long and interesting history I doubt that it alone is sufficient to produce the conditions necessary for a coup. The background to Argetina's coups is not something I know much about, but they do seem associated with economic hardship resulting from the international environment. Surely there would need to be factors beyond class conflict to feasibly produce a coup?

 

[El Pip]

Saving Argentina's economy is probably not too difficult; avoiding all those military coups and perhaps some diversification would probably with a bit of luck leave them as wealthy as any Western country per capita.

Obviously avoiding the coups would help, but it's not enough. Since the last Junta fell there's been thirty clear years of democratic rule and Argentina has still managed to have bouts of hyperinflation, a massive fight with the entire agricultural sector, have a warship seized due to not paying it's debts, raid the country's pension system to pay for imports and have a state of emergency declared due to the government freezing the national banking system.

That's just the short list, I could go on. So no military coups is a necessary condition, but clearly not sufficient.

 

[Michael B]

. So no military coups is a necessary condition, but clearly not sufficient.

Populist politicians can take power in any country then do their worst. Argentina and Venezula are just two sorry lessons of this.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Well, to swap the fates of Australia and Argentina, you could potentially have some PoD that blocks the White Australia policy. Ordinary Australian whites are still going to be pretty racist, and without the banning of 'blackbirding' (the kidnap and enslavement of Pacific Islanders to work in the sugar plantations of Queensland) and similar practices, unemployed white labourers wouldn't benefit from the eventual repatriation of the Islanders, and there'd be more racial tension simply by having more races. Add more Chinese and Indonesian immigration to the mix, especially in the early 20th century (Indonesian boat people escaping to Aus?) then you could have a much stronger labour movement pandering to immigrants. And you could have a white populist backlash to this, with the ensuing instability. Instability is bad for business, so economically they won't do well.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

For Argentina: Avoid second Yrigoyen presidency and let Elpidio Gonzales to succeed Marcelo Alvear to appease conservatives who wanted to overthrow the regime as they did in OTL. Without 1930 coup, without Juan Peron in Casa Rosada by 1946. Without Juan Peron, without series of coups that engulf Argentina for the much of post-WWII until 1983 and serious divisions among Peronists and non-Peronists because of Juan Peron's opportunism. Without coup and political divisions, more stable Argentina of today in part what Spain and Italy have right now.

 

[El Pip]

Without coup and political divisions, more stable Argentina of today in part what Spain and Italy have right now.

Not the best of examples. While Italy was probably more stable than Argentina it was a fairly close run thing at times; The Years of Lead weren't as bad as the Dirty War but they were still very bloody.

Equally Spain under Franco was certainly more stable, but only because he was more competent at running a dictatorship than his Argentinian counter-parts.

 

[Sam R.]

Class conflict though? Australia's never had a particularly strong upper class, and while the working/middle class competition has a long and interesting history I doubt that it alone is sufficient to produce the conditions necessary for a coup.

Time to read more pre WWI Australian economic and labour history. Starting with Noel Butlin on the structure of agricultural capitalism, then you might try Raewyn Connell's early works on Ruling Class structure in Australia. If you're not up for that, SBS's recent mining documentary's episode on "Money."

The corporations came early to Australia, and by 1890 dominated the economy. Australia has not had an ostentatious or visible "elite," they have been relatively secluded or hidden. But a bourgeoisie it has had.

The background to Argetina's coups is not something I know much about, but they do seem associated with economic hardship resulting from the international environment. Surely there would need to be factors beyond class conflict to feasibly produce a coup?

In 1949 Australia's economy was reasonable, its working class living standards were increasing, and the coal dispute was more or less entirely about whether workers or bosses would own Australia (and incidentally about whether workers would organise through and around the CPA or ALP).

So sending troops into the mines happened in the context of "mere" class conflict, and not penury or economic collapse.

Similarly, Lang's problem was to do with his suggested relationship of capital to labour (through state taxation), rather than the gross and immediate hardships of the depression.

ymmv.

 

[yofie]

Here's something even more radical: Make Australia French and not British from the get-go (and then have a string of very bad luck or wrong policies with the French Australian politicians - esp. after 1940 - the way that OTL Argentina has done), and make Argentina at least partially British (sort of like Canada with English and French) from 1806-07!

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Have Argentina taken over by Britain in the 17th century resulting in most colonists thereafter being from England, Scotland and Ireland (thus producing an overwhelming majority that speaks English); have them peacefully win self-government in the early 19th century leading to Dominion status. Have Australia be originally discovered and settled by the Spanish and win its independence from Spain in the early 19th century, thereafter attracting immigrants mostly from Spain and Italy.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Prevent the dip in Argentina's economy after WW1 and curbing the military should do it. I have no idea how to do Australia, unfortunately.

Have Argentina taken over by Britain in the 17th century resulting in most colonists thereafter being from England, Scotland and Ireland (thus producing an overwhelming majority that speaks English); have them peacefully win self-government in the early 19th century leading to Dominion status. Have Australia be originally discovered and settled by the Spanish and win its independence from Spain in the early 19th century, thereafter attracting immigrants mostly from Spain and Italy.

What?

Being English does not magically makes you stable and rich.

And with a POD where Spain settle Australia in an analogue of Argentina(circa late 1500s-1600s), the British Empire as we know it might not come around.

 

[yofie]

Being English does not magically makes you stable and rich.

Sure it does, if and only if we're talking about lands that are in the temperate zone (amenable to those from the British Isles) and that don't have heavy indigenous populations to begin with. In such a setting, like in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and an ATL British Argentina, it would be easy for British settlers to move there and for British institutions and laws (which are generally superior to their Continental European counterparts) to take full effect. (A partial exception might be the plantation-based economy of the US South until relatively recently.) Other areas that the British colonized in, like India and much of Africa, are in the tropics and already have had large (and relatively advanced) indigenous populations, and British colonization there takes a very different form which is not amenable to early industrialization. The Anglophone Caribbean is an interesting case, because while it's a) not as developed as North America, W. Europe, Australia/NZ, etc., b) there were plantation economies, c) most of the people there are descended from African slaves, d) in the tropics, the folks there are much more devoted to the British ideal than the rank-and-file in India or ex-British Africa and are generally much better educated.

 

[othyrsyde]

Sure it does, if and only if we're talking about lands that are in the temperate zone (amenable to those from the British Isles) and that don't have heavy indigenous populations to begin with. In such a setting, like in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and an ATL British Argentina, it would be easy for British settlers to move there and for British institutions and laws (which are generally superior to their Continental European counterparts) to take full effect. (A partial exception might be the plantation-based economy of the US South until relatively recently.) Other areas that the British colonized in, like India and much of Africa, are in the tropics and already have had large (and relatively advanced) indigenous populations, and British colonization there takes a very different form which is not amenable to early industrialization. The Anglophone Caribbean is an interesting case, because while it's a) not as developed as North America, W. Europe, Australia/NZ, etc., b) there were plantation economies, c) most of the people there are descended from African slaves, d) in the tropics, the folks there are much more devoted to the British ideal than the rank-and-file in India or ex-British Africa and are generally much better educated.

Wow, you've convinced me of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon master race. I will now kill myself for being a worthless darkie savage for half my DNA comes from the tropics.

 

[white crowe]

Isn't one of the bigger challenges with this coming up with a scenario where Britain allows this to happen. I can't really see the Imperial administration standing by and allowing a coup to install a fascist government.

 

[Lapsed Pacifist]

I recommend New Caledonia in place of the Falklands.

 

[juanml82]

Sure it does, if and only if we're talking about lands that are in the temperate zone (amenable to those from the British Isles) and that don't have heavy indigenous populations to begin with. In such a setting, like in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and an ATL British Argentina, it would be easy for British settlers to move there and for British institutions and laws (which are generally superior to their Continental European counterparts) to take full effect. (A partial exception might be the plantation-based economy of the US South until relatively recently.) Other areas that the British colonized in, like India and much of Africa, are in the tropics and already have had large (and relatively advanced) indigenous populations, and British colonization there takes a very different form which is not amenable to early industrialization. The Anglophone Caribbean is an interesting case, because while it's a) not as developed as North America, W. Europe, Australia/NZ, etc., b) there were plantation economies, c) most of the people there are descended from African slaves, d) in the tropics, the folks there are much more devoted to the British ideal than the rank-and-file in India or ex-British Africa and are generally much better educated.

Why would British immigrants go to a catholic, Spanish speaking, plantation colony of the UK when they didn't go to that place in OTL? And please tell me it doesn't involve the ethnic cleansing of my people.