"Fascist" Australia

[DMA]

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

Yes to your troop movements with the occasional engagement with WA separatists until Campbell is sacked.

I'd say Monash's job would be to heal the nation rather than save it.

Yes to WA as the saviours as their rebellion saw the end of Campbell's govt.

Yes to Curtin becoming PM as the Australian voters would desert the UAP in droves.

not if i can help it.

Good to know

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?

I'd doubt things would be much different as WW2 gets in the way. The UAP would fall apart akin to the OTL & Menzies establishes the Liberal Party. Maybe the ALP lasts a bit longer into the early 1950s, but that's about all. This extra three years, however, could see Australia flirt much more with socialism under Chifley. The banks may be in trouble as a result. But considering Australia, ten years previously, was lead towards right-wing extremism, I can't see the majority of Australians supporting the ALP going towards left-wing extremism for very long. So expect the ALP to be kicked out & remain in Opposition until 1972 (or something like that).

The size of the armed forces wouldn't change that much, as before WW2 they were pretty small & I can't see them growing substancially under a UAP/NG govt, which doesn't last that long in government. So the Australian forces of WW2 would still be citizen forces, for the most part, more or less reflecting the OTL.

 

[Scarecrow]

what if Menzies was dead/ or a NewGuard member?

 

[DMA]

what if Menzies was dead/ or a NewGuard member?

I can see why Menzies would die.

Plus, regardless what people may say about him, he's too intelligent to become a NG member. He may have dealings with them, but I'd doubt he'd join them.

 

[Scarecrow]

so without Menzies, could Labor stay in power much longer? they saw of the 'spectere of fascism' lead Australia victoriously through the War, could we have a Labour government until the mid-50's?

 

[DMA]

so without Menzies, could Labor stay in power much longer? they saw of the 'spectere of fascism' lead Australia victoriously through the War, could we have a Labour government until the mid-50's?

It's got more to do with the Australian elecorate not liking extremist politics - particularly in the aftermath of the Campbell debacle. So if the ALP goes down the socalist path, it'll be a matter of the ALP losing government more so than the Coalition Parties winning government. In this regards it won't matter who is the leader of the Coalition, Labor will lose for being stupid.

I'd say, under these circumstances, the ALP will be lucky to make it to 1951 without being booted out through an early election.

 

[Scarecrow]

so...any major changes at all? some documentaries/films about Australias dark days?

 

[DMA]

so...any major changes at all? some documentaries/films about Australias dark days?

Well the Menzies (or whoever is leader of the Coalition) govts may not be as conservative as this may not pass too well with the majority of Australian voters. So we may see a progressive conservative period instead. What do I mean by that?

Good question! Maybe something like the Gordon Liberal govt as against the Menzies Liberal govt. Having said that, there maybe a stronger tie to the UK & less of an independent Australian line for some time. So we're less in USA's sphere of influence & still in Britain’s sphere.

Now that may not mean overly much change except for Vietnam. If anything, it may mean Australia misses out on Vietnam. Just as importantly, republicanism may very well recede into the background as would an independent Australian nationalism which Whitlam rode to government on. Ironically, if the Whitlam govt comes to power in 1972, it may not be as radical & thus the Dismissal in 1975 doesn't take place. Furthermore a long period of ALP govts may see Whitlam, Hayden & finally Hawke Labor administrations in power until the late 1980s when a younger Howard comes to power.

So summing up - initally Australia is a more liberal place in the 1950s & 60s, but ends up more conservative than it is currently the case, as the Australian "identity" isn't as strong, nor are calls for a republic. We'd probably still be somewhat paranoid about Asia, whilst keeping some distance from the Americans.

And yes - documentaries/films about Australias dark days - with the moral tale - this is why we stay British!

 

[Scarecrow]

Well the Menzies (or whoever is leader of the Coalition) govts may not be as conservative as this may not pass too well with the majority of Australian voters. So we may see a progressive conservative period instead. What do I mean by that?

Good question! Maybe something like the Gordon Liberal govt as against the Menzies Liberal govt. Having said that, there maybe a stronger tie to the UK & less of an independent Australian line for some time. So we're less in USA's sphere of influence & still in Britain’s sphere.

Now that may not mean overly much change except for Vietnam. If anything, it may mean Australia misses out on Vietnam. Just as importantly, republicanism may very well recede into the background as would an independent Australian nationalism which Whitlam rode to government on. Ironically, if the Whitlam govt comes to power in 1972, it may not be as radical & thus the Dismissal in 1975 doesn't take place. Furthermore a long period of ALP govts may see Whitlam, Hayden & finally Hawke Labor administrations in power until the late 1980s when a younger Howard comes to power.

So summing up - initally Australia is a more liberal place in the 1950s & 60s, but ends up more conservative than it is currently the case, as the Australian "identity" isn't as strong, nor are calls for a republic. We'd probably still be somewhat paranoid about Asia, whilst keeping some distance from the Americans.

yes i like that, but maybe Labor in power through the 90's? One Nation killed prematurly?. no vietnam war sounds like a good idea, as well as a more british foucsed . what about stronger unions as a backlash to the NG? West Australians have further proof that the Eastern states fuck everything up "If it wasnt for us then Campbell would still be in power" etc

 

[DMA]

yes i like that, but maybe Labor in power through the 90's? One Nation killed prematurly?. no vietnam war sounds like a good idea, as well as a more british foucsed . what about stronger unions as a backlash to the NG? West Australians have further proof that the Eastern states fuck everything up "If it wasnt for us then Campbell would still be in power" etc

I'd doubt Labor could last that long. I'd give them 15 years at most. So in 1987, Howard comes to power just before the Bicentennial & sucks up to the Queen & all that.

Yeah, I'd say One Nation wouldn't last long as memories of Campbell's debacle would be quickly remembered.

I'd say the NG would be smashed by, not only Australians everywhere in general, but by the various state & federal governments as well. No need for the unions to do much.

Yeah, you could say that about you sandgropers On a serious note, though, WA would have some serious currency in Canberra for a while. So whatever pork barrel projects WA wants they'd probably get.

 

[MarkA]

It's no wonder the monarchists won the constitutional debate!

The Governor General IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Australia's Head of State. The GG is the legitimate English (NOT British) Monarch's representative in Australia. Monash making himself GG is simply inconceivable. No leader of any secret army would even consider supporting Edward being made King of Australia.

How could an Empire Loyalist be a Republican? How could an Empire Loyalist renounce the legitimate monarch and install a pretender as a rival Head of State? How could an Empire Loyalist stand aside and let Britain be involved in a war in which Australia was not also involved?

When Baldwin tried to secure a compromise to allow Edward to keep his throne, Australia, on behalf of the other Dominions, made it clear that the Empire would not support any such move. The idea was immediately dropped. Ireland was not a Dominion nor was India. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were the Dominions of the British Empire.

 

[DMA]

It's no wonder the monarchists won the constitutional debate!

Actually the Monarchists didn't win the constitutional debate. It was the pointless republic model, that was put forward, which ensured that the majority of Australians voted NO (this republican among them). Change the model, where the President is directly elected by the People, & you'll get a YES vote in all states & territories.

The Governor General IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Australia's Head of State. The GG is the legitimate English (NOT British) Monarch's representative in Australia.

I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary.

Monash making himself GG is simply inconceivable. No leader of any secret army would even consider supporting Edward being made King of Australia.

You'll find that Scarecrow dropped that idea.

How could an Empire Loyalist be a Republican? How could an Empire Loyalist renounce the legitimate monarch and install a pretender as a rival Head of State? How could an Empire Loyalist stand aside and let Britain be involved in a war in which Australia was not also involved?

Well Scarecrow has this Campbell character as a right-winger, but pro-Australia first. Furthermore, after all of our discussions, he has dispensed with the WW2 business altogether. The events of his AH now takes place before WW2 as it solves all of these problems raised in regards to WW2.

When Baldwin tried to secure a compromise to allow Edward to keep his throne, Australia, on behalf of the other Dominions, made it clear that the Empire would not support any such move. The idea was immediately dropped. Ireland was not a Dominion nor was India. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were the Dominions of the British Empire.

Well in this AH Edward isn't made King of the UK anyway. Instead, Scarecrow has him become GG, after a friendly Australian govt under this Campbell character, appoints him as GG. Granted, it means this Australian govt has to be this UAP/NG business, because Edward would have buckley's chance with any other.

 

[Scarecrow]

The Governor General IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Australia's Head of State. The GG is the legitimate English (NOT British) Monarch's representative in Australia.

i dont recall saying this. or anything like it. power always rested with the PM, be it Campbell or otherwise.

Monash making himself GG is simply inconceivable. No leader of any secret army would even consider supporting Edward being made King of Australia.

I had Monash establish himself as a 'provisional' government before a new government could be elected. he didnt co-operate with the NG/UAP, in fact Campbell forced him into retirement. he is brought our of retirement to lead the forces of good, and eradicate the 'European solution' from Australias shore. me and DMA have sorted out most of the broad issues of this TL, so read what i have written, and DMAs rebuttal to that

It's no wonder the monarchists won the constitutional debate!.

as DMA said before, its a shitty republican design. the prez would be elected by a 2/3 majority in parlement, not by the people. i want a republic, but im not that desperate.

 

[Scarecrow]

just had a thought about this, tl
in 1936-39, could/would Campbell send an expidtionary force to Spain to fight alongside the nationalists?

 

[DMA]

just had a thought about this, tl
in 1936-39, could/would Campbell send an expidtionary force to Spain to fight alongside the nationalists?

Using what as the armed forces? The Australian Army in this period is a joke & that's including various reforms that had begin from about 1935 onwards.

The RAN isn't much better & is only big enough to patrol local waters.

The RAAF is about the worst of them all & couldn't even defend Australia left alone be sent to Spain.

The there's the political aspect. If Australians openly questioned getting involved in WW2 in 1939, in order to help the UK, you can forget about any support for a war in Spain supporting a group no-one in Australia hasn't ever heard thereof.

 

[Scarecrow]

yeah i know, i was just flipping through my Australian history book, and saw that and thought hey! what aobut spain...

 

[DMA]

yeah i know, i was just flipping through my Australian history book, and saw that and thought hey! what aobut spain...

Well maybe some NG idiots could organise their own volunteer battalion, grab their old 303s, & sail off to Spain in a manner akin to the International Brigades. But that's about the only way some sort of Australian representation may take place.

 

[Scarecrow]

ok, that makes more sense them my ramblings. do you know any websites where i can get info about the

a) Australian army in the 30's

b) the electorates in the 30's, becuase i know that they change them around. cheers.

 

[DMA]

Well for the army that's not hard. Go to the Army's history website & click on whatever link you want.

Also try Digger.Com's Post WW1 webpage.

Now electorate's is a tricky issue. I don't know any historical online sites, only texts like the ones Malcolm Mackerras publishes. But none of his are of the 1930s.

You could try the Australian electoral commission & see what they've got.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Australians in Spanish CW

DMA and Scarecrow, there were a few Australians who served in the Int'l Bdes during the Spanish CW, though they were more of the leftist persuasion of course. IIRC I think there were also a small no. of men in the Nationalist ranks originally hailing from downunder too.

This site'd be a good source of info- http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/other/spanish-civil-war.htm, and there's also Amirah inglis' book AUSTRALIANS & THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, which I believe I came across briefly in my Yr 12 Hist studies 10 yrs back, but never read in detail (http://www.manningclark.org.au/papers/spanish_civil_war.htm).