"Fascist" Australia

[Othniel]

Has ANY purpose-built capital ever turned out well? (Okay, maybe Brasilia...maybe). I can't help thinking that if we'd done that for whatever reason, the capital of Britain would now be Milton Keynes.

San Paulo was a town built for a capital, but it grew too big and they moved it to Brasilia. Those Brazillians can build sucessful cities.

There is also Washington DC, although it is horriblely muggy there...

 

[Norman]

Would Bonn be considered a purpose-build capital. (I know that government functions are now divided between Bonn and Berlin, but for decades they weren't.)

 

[DMA]

Well Canberra was built in the middle of a cow paddock miles from no where. It's about 300km south-west of Sydney & about 800 km to the north of Melbourne. Coincidentally it's located in the middle of an open valley, with ranges to the east & west with the Snowy Mountains to the south. In winter, a fog hovers around the place until around Midday. Similarly in winter, if there's a southerly wind, it's freezing cold because of the wind-chill factor due to the Snowy Mountains (even though it hardly ever snows in Canberra). In summer, because Canberra is located in this open valley, it gets stinking hot causing bushfires. In fact a few suburbs were burned down a few years ago due to bushfires. But most important of all there are no half decent pubs in the place, although there are numerous adult book shops! The place is a dump!

 

[MarkA]

Look I am sorry but I don't think some of you people get politics. The New Guard and almost 100% of all the other secret armies were EMPIRE LOYALISTS. This means they were devoted to the concept of the British Empire and they sincerely and deeply believed only its survival and success could ensure their liberties as 'Britons' or as Australians, who were after all only transplanted Britons. This is one reason they did not like catholics since most catholics in Australia were of Irish extraction.

These right wing groups were NOT Fascist. They had no fascist ideology. They had NO alliegence to any foreign power apart from Britian which they considered not to be a foreign power.

In summary their beilefs can be encapuslated as follows. Australia was a part of the British Empire. Like Canada and South Africia and New Zealand we were Dominions. That is we were the protestant, white, British parts of the world. We were the only sane, rational and legitimate power in the world. They tolerated the USA but only because their ruling class were also of predominately British stock ( or so they convinced themselves).

The secret armies could not 'take over' a political party because they were disorganised and politically incompetent. Their raison d'etre was to put armed men into the streets to twart any communist, catholic, jewish, non-British etc ad nauseum takeover of Australia. Hence the debacle in Victoria where they locked up their catholic neighbours at gunpoint.

Monash was never the head of a secret army. He was approached but refused. His name was put forward because of his immense popularity among returned servicemen as a result of his ability during the war. As I said in an earlier post, the ruling class and their middle class mimics were violently anti-semetic. They would never consider Monash or any other Jew as leader of their particular organisation. They wouldn't even let them into their clubs or their childern into their childerns' schools! Of course they wouldn't let catholics in either.

Thre story of Monash's approach is similar to other generals from the war. Only White seems to have been ameniable if the White Army does represent his name and not simply a sort of slogan like the Great White Fleet.

Finally, it is pure fantasy to suppose that Australia would have been neutral in any conflict GB was involved in. To suppose that any group or political organisation with widespread popular support could move this country to a position where they were militarily opposed to the UK in 1939 is beyond fantasy.

 

[Scarecrow]

well maybe my POD will be that Eric Cambel is a republican

actualy the POD would prob be the introduction of the compulsary voting in the 1920's, but its most likley to be a 'multiple-pod' tl, which i normaly dont like. i have only done a little bit of reaserch, as my uni course and starting a new job are a bit more important then sorting this out, but there was a bit, not alot, a bit, of anti-british feeling, during the depression, especialy because of the buisness with the banks. this tl is still in preliminary stages, which is why i posted this.

i called it fascist Australia because it sounds better then para-military Australia, ok. and i dont recal mentioning them having any alligences to any forieng powers, plus i didnt pull the invide king edward to Australia idea out of noware, Lyons suggested it in Parlement on the 11th of December, 1936. he was shouted down for it.

 

[Melvin Loh]

DMA, i don't mind Canberra at all- I visited some family friends who'd moved there back in Easter 1999, and I loved it, though i froze my butt off since it was so damn cold. You can't totally trash Canberra with the AWM and so many other interesting places though ! I went to the War Memorial about 3 or 4 times when I was in the ACT, and I also enjoyed the nice clinical well-laid out nature of Canberra and its suburbs.

As for Monash and anti-Semitism in Australia- I remember reading a few yrs ago that Australia hasn't had a strong tradition of anti-Semitic thought unlike in other Western countries due to the influence of phenomenal men of Jewish stock such as Monash and his immense military contributions towards Australia's success as a young nation.

BTW, Australia never had its own version during the 1930s of a bona fide equivalent to the BUF or any other fascist group, then ?

 

[DMA]

DMA, i don't mind Canberra at all- I visited some family friends who'd moved there back in Easter 1999, and I loved it, though i froze my butt off since it was so damn cold. You can't totally trash Canberra with the AWM and so many other interesting places though ! I went to the War Memorial about 3 or 4 times when I was in the ACT, and I also enjoyed the nice clinical well-laid out nature of Canberra and its suburbs.

Oh don't get me wrong - Canberra is a lovely place to visit, especially in mid Spring. Like it's got the AWM, old Parliament House, High Court, the archives & the National Library, not to mention ANU. But it's a dump to live in for the reasons I mentioned & a lot more.

BTW, Australia never had its own version during the 1930s of a bona fide equivalent to the BUF or any other fascist group, then ?

Nope, although it depends upon the definition of "fascist". I noted that MarkA took a much more stricter definition, that being akin to the Italians & Nazis, rather than the more relaxed version that the rest of us were using. So if you mean something like the Nazis, then no. But, if you mean a right-wing milita group akin to the new Guard, then yes.

 

[DMA]

These right wing groups were NOT Fascist. They had no fascist ideology. They had NO alliegence to any foreign power apart from Britian which they considered not to be a foreign power...

The secret armies could not 'take over' a political party because they were disorganised and politically incompetent. Their raison d'etre was to put armed men into the streets to twart any communist, catholic, jewish, non-British etc ad nauseum takeover of Australia. Hence the debacle in Victoria where they locked up their catholic neighbours at gunpoint.

I think we're all confusing the definition of the word fascist. Now clearly Mosley in the UK was fascist, but clearly pro British. So I can't see why you can't be fascist whilst being pro Australian. But essentially, I think most of us have being using the word fascist here in labling right-wing militia groups, like the New Guard, as fascist in relation to their position to the Australian political spectrum. Now they may have not been fascists in the Nazi sense of the word, but in Australian terms, they were fascists.

Furthermore, I think it's wrong to say that, just because they couldn't organise properly in the OTL to take over a political party, so they can't in an AH. Now, whilst I'd completely agree that any military coup would be impossible, & any sudden takeover of a political party is also impossible, a long drawn out strategy, over a 20 year period, is possible if the right "New Guard" leader can come along. But granted, that's the problem for this AH scenario - the New Guard has to get the right leader.

Finally, it is pure fantasy to suppose that Australia would have been neutral in any conflict GB was involved in. To suppose that any group or political organisation with widespread popular support could move this country to a position where they were militarily opposed to the UK in 1939 is beyond fantasy.

Yes, I agree that Australia joining the Axis is ASB territory. Being neutral, though, is another matter. Afterall Ireland, which was still a member of the British Commonwelath/Empire in 1939, remained neutral in WW2. In fact Canada, unlike the OTL Australia, waited a few days before joining Britain's declaration of war against Germany in 1939. And it's not as if there was thinking in Australia, in both 1914 & 1939, that a war in Europe, even if it did involve the UK, had nothing to do with Australia & that we should stay out of it. So the OTL does have a grounding in supporting neutrallity. So it's possible. having said that, a lot has to happen in this AH Australia, from 1936 or so onwards, for neutrality to happen. In other words, I'd rate it as unlikely, but possible.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Fortress Australia

Yeah DMA, i recall that during the 1930s there was 1 bloc of pro-Australian defence advocates within the ALP, who emphasised that Australia's defence needs should be focussed exclusively on defending our shores from possible Japanese attack, as opposed to the expeditionary force mentality of WWI. I believe this was why the fledgling Australian arms industry got started in embryo, to produce indigenously weapon systems like the CAC Wirraway armed trainer and Beaufort bomber (your favourite- ). WI then the Fortress Australia mindset within the Australian govt was more prevalent by 1939 ?

 

[Othniel]

But for Australlia not to declare war on Japan?

 

[MarkA]

Alright I'll concede that when people talk about fascists they don't mean fascists. But still the idea that these people could 'take over' a political party and run the country as a distinct ideological cadre misses the point.

Their position was that they DID run the country already. The reason they were organised into militia groups was not to take over the government of Australia but to be ready to prevent someone else taking it over. Prime Ministers, cabinet members, senior public servants, police, intelligence and military personel were all supporters of these groups at one time. Why stage an armed rebellion to seize what you already control?

The evidence suggests that the people who approached Monash were rank and file members of one of the secret armies. They were fearful of the consequences of the Victorian Police strike and wanted him to take TEMPORARY control of the government of the state and impose order. I reiterate - the ruling class would NEVER allow a Jew to be head of any organisation they ran. Their opposition to Issac Issacs clearly shows this. Issacs was appointed by a Labor Gvt.

As for a fortress Australia, this too is a misunderstanding of the position. The Australia first faction in the ALP and other Australian nationalists did not advocate a disengagement from the Imperial alliance. They were opposed to another AIF being sent to Europe when Japan clearly presented a danger.

It was the right-wing of Oz politics including Menzies who supported the Imperial Defence System. As Empire Loyalists so too did the various secret armies. Their world view would never allow them to abandon Britain. A right wing Republican in 1930's Australia is an absurdity. Even the Labor Party supported the alliance with Britain. The inherent racism in Australia would never allow any government to contemplate, let alone implement, an alliance with Germany or Japan or any power opposed to GB.

Canada did delay their announcement of the declaration of war by two days. This insignificant delay was due I think to simply waiting until there was absolutely no doubt of war and that the French Canadian population were reassured that France and Britain were in it together.

 

[DMA]

Yeah DMA, i recall that during the 1930s there was 1 bloc of pro-Australian defence advocates within the ALP, who emphasised that Australia's defence needs should be focussed exclusively on defending our shores from possible Japanese attack, as opposed to the expeditionary force mentality of WWI. I believe this was why the fledgling Australian arms industry got started in embryo, to produce indigenously weapon systems like the CAC Wirraway armed trainer and Beaufort bomber (your favourite- ). WI then the Fortress Australia mindset within the Australian govt was more prevalent by 1939 ?

Well it wasn't just some thinking this in the ALP. I think you'll find that it was reasonably accepted across many sectors of Australian thinking. Mind you, Australia getting invaded by someone has always been around since the First Fleet. First it was the French, then the Russians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Chinese were often feared for whatever reason, then came the Japanese, & finally the Indonesians. I guess it's now the terrorists. So establishing Fortress Australia wouldn't be hard considering it's has more or less been the mindset since 1788 without it having been the official policy.

BTW it's more so the Beaufighter than the Beaufort, that I admire, but it's basically the same aircraft Man could those Beau's kick ass! I saw some footage of Beaufighters attacking shipping & the fighterpower was unbelievable!

 

[DMA]

Alright I'll concede that when people talk about fascists they don't mean fascists. But still the idea that these people could 'take over' a political party and run the country as a distinct ideological cadre misses the point.

Their position was that they DID run the country already. The reason they were organised into militia groups was not to take over the government of Australia but to be ready to prevent someone else taking it over. Prime Ministers, cabinet members, senior public servants, police, intelligence and military personel were all supporters of these groups at one time. Why stage an armed rebellion to seize what you already control?

Well all this is fine provided the New Guard do not get a leader who thinks otherwise. Now I've been under the impression, from Scarecrow, that a leader comes along who realises the reality of the situation for the New Guard. So the first POD is that the New Guard gets a leader who, realises the New Guard isn't running anything & is, in reality, being manipulated by others.

As a result of this, my thinking was that, in the early 1920s, this new leader sits down & organises a long term strategy that will see the New Guard, not actually take over a political party, but become a major faction in one. In this instance I chose the UAP. Importantly, though, for most of this period, the UAP doesn't itself become an extreme right-wing party until a New Guard faction member (presumably the "leader") becomes PM somewhere around 1936-37. Having said that, as the New Guard faction gains more & more members, the policies of the UAP slowly become more extreme. But none of this happens overnight. It takes close to two decades. Fundamentally, however, it's the only way I can see how a group like the New Guard can eventually come to real power. Any other way I see as impossible.

The evidence suggests that the people who approached Monash were rank and file members of one of the secret armies. They were fearful of the consequences of the Victorian Police strike and wanted him to take TEMPORARY control of the government of the state and impose order. I reiterate - the ruling class would NEVER allow a Jew to be head of any organisation they ran. Their opposition to Issac Issacs clearly shows this. Issacs was appointed by a Labor Gvt.

I don't think anyone supports the idea that Monash would do anything else but this.

As for a fortress Australia, this too is a misunderstanding of the position. The Australia first faction in the ALP and other Australian nationalists did not advocate a disengagement from the Imperial alliance. They were opposed to another AIF being sent to Europe when Japan clearly presented a danger.

Well by 1936 Japan did appear to be such a danger to Australia. As a result, with a New Guard/UAP govt in Canberra, that Australia declares an armed neutrality in regards to Germany, whilst preparing Australia's defences in preparation for war with Japan. Then when Japan attacks Malaysia in 1941, Australia comes to the rescue of British Imperial interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

It was the right-wing of Oz politics including Menzies who supported the Imperial Defence System. As Empire Loyalists so too did the various secret armies. Their world view would never allow them to abandon Britain. A right wing Republican in 1930's Australia is an absurdity. Even the Labor Party supported the alliance with Britain. The inherent racism in Australia would never allow any government to contemplate, let alone implement, an alliance with Germany or Japan or any power opposed to GB.

Well just because Menzies was right-wing doesn't mean to say every right-winger in Australia agreed with him. Furthermore, not everyone in the ALP supported the British Alliance. In fact it's really a trap to consider political parties act as individuals.

Members of parties can violently disagree with each other. Factions, regardless of party, can be in complete disagreement over any issue. The ALP is the obvious party to study, but the UAP & Country Parties have members with diverse opinions over various policies. In fact the UAP, which is usually for free trade, is at loggerheads in such economic policy with their Country Party coalitin partners, who want tarrifs to protect primary industries.

Likewise, you will find right-wing Republicans in any age. Today you'll find the likes of Malcolm Turnbull & even Peter Costello among their ranks. In the past the likes of the Wentworth family have been republicans. Now sure, Menzies wouldn't be one, but if this AH New Guard Leader comes along, manages to introduce his reforms into the New Guard & thus eventually into UAP policy in the late 1930s, well it would be a completely different matter. But you happen to forget Scarecrow's POD on the matter here - Australia doesn't become a republic, but takes Edward as its king. In doing so I gather we become an independent kingdom ourselves or that's the impression I got.

Canada did delay their announcement of the declaration of war by two days. This insignificant delay was due I think to simply waiting until there was absolutely no doubt of war and that the French Canadian population were reassured that France and Britain were in it together.

Well the fact that the Canadians had to think about it first speak volumes. Clearly, they were thinking Canada first, not Britian & Empire first.

 

[Chef Kyle]

Yes, I agree that Australia joining the Axis is ASB territory. Being neutral, though, is another matter. Afterall Ireland, which was still a member of the British Commonwelath/Empire in 1939, remained neutral in WW2.

Yes, but Ireland became independent as the result of centuries of revolt against England. They were members of the Commonwealth only because they had to be. As soon as they got a chance, they pulled out a declared themselves a full republic, 1948 or so.

Whereas Australia became independent as the result of two referenda, and an Act of the British Parliament. And it's still not a republic 105 years later, thank God.

Australia was the child who's grown up enough to move out of home, but still visits his parents for Sunday dinner. Ireland was the foster who never got along with the parents, at times loathed them, and caused lots of trouble and embarassment for the whole family, and eventually he ran away from home.

So Australia and Ireland are quite different countries in that respect.

Australia can't be neutral with the whole Japanese Imperial Navy, and dozens of Japanese divisions, stomping about in the islands to the north of the country. And we can't be neutral with the Germans, either, since if they take over most of Europe and North Africa, Britain will be too busy defending itself to send anything to defend us from Japan. We send the Army to Europe and North Africa so that Britain can send the Royal Navy to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Rely on the Americans? Not in 1939, mate. The thinking then would be that the Americans will only show up when the war's already won, like last time... That was what we thought of the USA then, what we think now I shall not mention on this primarily American message board

If you want Australia neutral in WWII, you have to drown Hitler as a baby and have Hirohito become a gardener instead of Emperor.

 

[DMA]

Yes, but Ireland became independent as the result of centuries of revolt against England. They were members of the Commonwealth only because they had to be. As soon as they got a chance, they pulled out a declared themselves a full republic, 1948 or so.

Nevertheless they were still part of a Commonwealth in a manner not too dissimilar to the other "independent" Dominions. It shows that such "independent" Dominions could remain neutral if they wanted. And Ireland was a lot closer to tha action than Australia.

Whereas Australia became independent as the result of two referenda, and an Act of the British Parliament. And it's still not a republic 105 years later, thank God.

Actually it's not as clear cut as that. Republicanism was alive & well in the 1890s & was discussed at length by our Founding Fathers. The main reason why we didn't become a Republic, in 1901, was that the Founding Fathers came to the conclusion that Britain would not agree to Australia becoming a republic other than through a violent revolution. Such as thing was not considered an option. Instead "independent" Dominion status was far more palatable to all save a few radicals.

Australia was the child who's grown up enough to move out of home, but still visits his parents for Sunday dinner. Ireland was the foster who never got along with the parents, at times loathed them, and caused lots of trouble and embarassment for the whole family, and eventually he ran away from home.

So Australia and Ireland are quite different countries in that respect.

I understand what you're saying, but things in Australia aren't that simple. Again you're treating Australia as an individual that makes decision as a single individual does. Well that isn't the case. There are plenty of Irish Australians around, back then as now, who are just as keen to see Australia do its own thing as Ireland has. Don't forget a large number of us Australians are also of Irish decent. Now I'll agree that Australia is more likely to answer a call to arms by Britiain than Ireland, but, what with Japan being a clear threat by 1936, Australia is looking at the local region just as much as what is happening in Europe. The entire Singapore strategy, which the UK agreed to, was, don't forget, put into place because of concerns voiced in Australia.

Australia can't be neutral with the whole Japanese Imperial Navy, and dozens of Japanese divisions, stomping about in the islands to the north of the country. And we can't be neutral with the Germans, either, since if they take over most of Europe and North Africa, Britain will be too busy defending itself to send anything to defend us from Japan. We send the Army to Europe and North Africa so that Britain can send the Royal Navy to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Rely on the Americans? Not in 1939, mate. The thinking then would be that the Americans will only show up when the war's already won, like last time... That was what we thought of the USA then, what we think now I shall not mention on this primarily American message board

If you want Australia neutral in WWII, you have to drown Hitler as a baby and have Hirohito become a gardener instead of Emperor.

I never said Australia would be neutral to Japan (although granted much earlier I flirted with the possibility). Instead I proposed the possible AH scenario:

Well by 1936 Japan did appear to be such a danger to Australia. As a result, with a New Guard/UAP govt in Canberra, that Australia declares an armed neutrality in regards to Germany, whilst preparing Australia's defences in preparation for war with Japan. Then when Japan attacks Malaysia in 1941, Australia comes to the rescue of British Imperial interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

In many respects, this AH Australia follows the American approach to WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor. If Germany, in December 1941, declares war on Australia, well we then also enter the war against Germany.

 

[Scarecrow]

thank you all for your usefull coments and infomation, but i have decided to go in a very different course to what i had propposed before. the NG hijacking the UAP is still the same,etc
King edward abdicates on cue, but instead of my idea as him as king, Campbell asks him to become GG. the queen disagrees with this. Campbell insists on it, and theyy make the decission that at the next election, even if the UAP wins power, Edward goes as GG.
there are key problems with setting up a totalaterian gov in Australia, due to our constitution. to bypass this, Campbell decides to orchistrate a national emargancy that would allow him to take over. unfortunetly he misjudged the NG popularity in Australia. the Unionists hate him after the Snowy river schemes are done. the Irish Catholics hate him. West Australia hates him. in 1939 the UAP win power, but on a tighter margin then before. the queen demands that Edward be deposed as GG. Campbell refuses to do so. WW2 roles around on time, and Campbell decides to stall on the idea of sending troops to help England and fight the Germans. he will need them for his next stage of his plan. Campbells emergency can be put in place, Westralian secessionists provide him with one by blowing up sections of the Indian-Pacifc railroad, isolationg WA from the rest of the country. Campbell decides to issue Martial law, and organises the army and navy to go to WA, when miners in Victoria strike, and riot in several towns, burning police stations. Campbell calls it a communist uprising, and ivides the troops to go there.
basicly all out revolt to the UAP government happens during 1940, with desertions in the armed forces, and the UAP members and Edward barricading themselves in Canberra. Monash, who Campbell put out to retirement, comes back, and leads the anti-UAP forces to victory over the diminishing UAP troops. Monash instals himself as GG, and orders new elections for 1941.
not sure what to do about te Westralian question, but perhaps Monash allows them to be independant?
thats my basic new idea, but i think its a bit more plausable then what i was discussing before. comments would be nice...

 

[DMA]

Just a couple of observations Scarecrow:

Who's this "queen"? you keep mentioning? It'd be King George. There wouldn't be a queen per se other than his wife (the Queen Mum).

The next is about the GG. Back when Issac Issacs was apointed GG it was settled as to who had the final say on the Australia GG. That is the Australian PM has the final say & not the Crown. Importantly the government does not need an election in order to appoint a GG. It simply tells the Crown who the GG is going to be.

The Australian Constitution is actually rather draconian insofar as there aren't too many human rights involved. basically Australians have the right to trial by jury & the right to vote. That's about it at a prima facie level. Similarly, the Constitution basically gives the overall power to the GG. No where, in the Constitution, does it mention anything about a PM or Cabinet government. Instead it mentions a Federal Executive Council which advises the GG (Sections 62 & 63).

The Snowy Mountains Scheme wasn't started until after WW2 & not before.

Now Martial Law is a very touchy issue &, if an Australian govt did declare it in regards to a rebellious state (or anything else for that matter), I wouldn't be surprised if that federal government lost all support of the Australian People & soon find itself kicked out of office itself. So the scenario you've got wouldn't surprise me except for the ending. There is no way Monash would install himself as GG. That's the PM's job. More than likely, the Australian Parliament votes a no-confidence motion in Campbell's government which would most likely pass. Now even if GG Edward plays around, Parliament would call for an election. It'd be something along the lines of 1975 in many respects. Importantly, a new caretaker PM (probably from the ALP) would govern until then. At this point, GG Edward would be fired & then Monash appointed the new GG by the new PM.

What happens to WA, by this stage, I don't know, but going independent the way you've described would be completely illegal regardless who's in power in Canberra. Needless to say, both Canberra & London would reject the West's claim of independence.

 

[Scarecrow]

i know the snow river scheme was done after WW2, and built by migrant labour, but i had thought of the UAP isnstitutiong the SRS as a way of providing work for people.

Now Martial Law is a very touchy issue &, if an Australian govt did declare it in regards to a rebellious state (ot anything else for that matter), I wouldn't be surprised if that federal government lost all support of the Australian People & soon find itself kicked out of office itself. So the scenario you've got wouldn't surprise me except for the ending. There is no way Monash would install himself as GG. That's the PM's job. More than likely, the Australian Parliament votes a no-confidence motion in Campbell's government which would most likely pass. Now even if GG Edward plays around, Parliament would call for an election. It'd something along the lines of 1975 in many respects. Importantly, a new caretaker PM (probably from the ALP) would govern until then. At this point, GG Edward would be fired & then Monash appointed the new GG by the new PM.

so no 'civil war' ? i wanted Monash to bomb Canberraa... this is very helpful information.

how does the phrase ' A European solution to an Australian problem' sound for an academic talking about Campbells 'fascist' ideals?

 

[DMA]

i know the snow river scheme was done after WW2, and built by migrant labour, but i had thought of the UAP isnstitutiong the SRS as a way of providing work for people.

Ah, fair enough. I don't think they'll have to time to actually start building it, but there'd be nothing to stop them announcing it as government policy.

so no 'civil war' ? i wanted Monash to bomb Canberraa... this is very helpful information.

Well you could still have your civil war when Campbell sends the army & navy into WA in order to surpress the revolt there. You could have it that WA saves the country from the evil & twisted fascists (even if they aren't fascists by stricted definition ).

But Canberra would survive - unfortunately

how does the phrase ' A European solution to an Australian problem' sound for an academic talking about Campbells 'fascist' ideals?

That sounds quite catchy actually!

 

[Scarecrow]

Well you could still have your civil war when Campbell sends the army & navy into WA in order to surpress the revolt there. You could have it that WA saves the country from the evil & twisted fascists (even if they aren't fascists by stricted definition ).

ah ok then. plotting troop movements. So having Monash come out of retirement to save the nation? secretly plotting further movements . but WA seen as the saviours sounds good. Curtin elected as PM in the post-UAP election? mmhmm

But Canberra would survive - unfortunately

not if i can help it.

so in the pos-UAP Australia, would unions be stronger perhaps? surely the UAP would either collapse or be on the brink of collapse? the people wouldnt trust them. Battle hardened troops going to the Middle east? maybe a bigger navy/airforce?