Fate of the Australian Aborigines in an Axis Victory, and Japanese Australia

[Fred the Great]

Even if they are not classifying them as equal, then the best way to start off would be like not classifying them as local Australian Fauna, or giving land back to them that they might have lost, or maybe giving back some of the lost generation members.

You will never get an argument from on the above. What happened was beyond shame. We have so much to do to put this as right as is possible

Right, Indigenous Australians were dispossessed, had their culture suppressed and were enslaved, murdered and generally egregiously mistreated from colonial times, but . . .

This rot about Aboriginal people being classified as "fauna" is exactly that - rot; it's a myth. Contrary to popular misconception, while it was important - but more symbolically and as a trigger for further advances in Aboriginal affairs - the 1967 referendum did not bestow humanity or citizenship on Aboriginal Australians. They were already considered people (if not equal), and they had the latter at least from 1948 - even if many didn't know it.

The "lost" - or "stolen generation" - is also surrounded in myth, but is much convoluted with much truth there too and it would be a long and tedious discussion to get into - and also obviously off topic.

So, getting back on topic, Aboriginal Australians fought in World War 1 and in World War 2. In the latter, they were part of North Australia Observer Unit - established as scouts in the face of the threat of Japanese invasion - and they would have fought and died for their country, as they had in the past.

The Japanese would have mistreated Aboriginal Australians as much as they did any other racial group in World War 2.

 

[Incanian]

You're still talking about 10% migration rate, that's the same level as people leaving Ireland after the Potato Famine (although because Japan has more people than Ireland, on a much larger scale). Nothing short of an extreme catastrophe (like the famine) is going to cause so many people to leave, especially if, as you suggest, Japan has a good economy. Advertising will help a little bit, and over the course of decades you might get 1 or 2%, but if you don't want the Japanese assimilating, decades is too long.

- BNC

It doesn't have to be just Japanese though. Japan after winning the war is going to be extremely diverse, so really, anyone can go. Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Or especially Indonesian can all come over. And seeing the vast population of those places, It would make sense. Over Decades, Japanization will be able to slowly become more accepted. Japanization could work given time and effectiveness. All they need to do is wait for the next generation that they can put Japanese ideas in, and over time, Australia won't have whites as the majority.

 

[Incanian]

Good to see you too.

Also that is true but the Japanese where exceptionally bad (to the point that they where even worse than British settlers over here)

Well I mean, they had a plan for the war with China to end really really quickly, but Chiang Kai Shek just changed Capitals, and China has a huge population, the Nanking Massacre was done to get the Chinese to surrender, out of fear of what the Japanese did to one city. The atrocities were done to make what they wanted true, a fast, and clean end to the war, with minimal casualties. But that didn't happen, so the massacre unfortunately happened.

 

[Jellico]

How did the Japanese treat the populations on the Pacific islands they acquired after WWI? I seem to recall from vague memories that conditions were better than in Asia, if only through lack of resources to exploit.

 

[Incanian]

Right, Indigenous Australians were dispossessed, had their culture suppressed and were enslaved, murdered and generally egregiously mistreated from colonial times, but . . .

This rot about Aboriginal people being classified as "fauna" is exactly that - rot; it's a myth. Contrary to popular misconception, while it was important - but more symbolically and as a trigger for further advances in Aboriginal affairs - the 1967 referendum did not bestow humanity or citizenship on Aboriginal Australians. They were already considered people (if not equal), and they had the latter at least from 1948 - even if many didn't know it.

The "lost" - or "stolen generation" - is also surrounded in myth, but is much convoluted with much truth there too and it would be a long and tedious discussion to get into - and also obviously off topic.

So, getting back on topic, Aboriginal Australians fought in World War 1 and in World War 2. In the latter, they were part of North Australia Observer Unit - established as scouts in the face of the threat of Japanese invasion - and they would have fought and died for their country, as they had in the past.

The Japanese would have mistreated Aboriginal Australians as much as they did any other racial group in World War 2.

Well while there are still aboriginal loyalists, there are still so many tribes that may not have that same opinion. They'll still say if the Aboriginals are revolting, they'll just kill them because they are against the Empire. But they'll just give them equal rights with the whites.

 

[Fred the Great]

Well while there are still aboriginal loyalists, there are still so many tribes that may not have that same opinion. They'll still say if the Aboriginals are revolting, they'll just kill them because they are against the Empire. But they'll just give them equal rights with the whites.

I doubt they'd give them equal rights because they wouldn't have seen them as particularly useful. You have to understand where Aboriginal people lived and what industries they worked in. But, anyway, the entire premise is ASB so it's a little difficult to even consider how it would work. We can only but speculate based on the fact Aboriginal Australians were loyal and the Japanese didn't treat racial minorities particularly well.

 

[Incanian]

I'm reading up on it, they were told to commit to 30 days of work for the empire of Japan. Anyone younger than 14, or older than 50, and women were not forced to work.

They told them to go into forced labor, but it wasn't terrible forced labor, with terrible conditions. It wasn't too bad for them actually.

 

[Spens1]

Well I mean, they had a plan for the war with China to end really really quickly, but Chiang Kai Shek just changed Capitals, and China has a huge population, the Nanking Massacre was done to get the Chinese to surrender, out of fear of what the Japanese did to one city. The atrocities were done to make what they wanted true, a fast, and clean end to the war, with minimal casualties. But that didn't happen, so the massacre unfortunately happened.

still doesn't make it any better. They would do that to the indigenous in a heartbeat if not worse.

 

[Incanian]

I doubt they'd give them equal rights because they wouldn't have seen them as particularly useful. You have to understand where Aboriginal people lived and what industries they worked in. But, anyway, the entire premise is ASB so it's a little difficult to even consider how it would work. We can only but speculate based on the fact Aboriginal Australians were loyal and the Japanese didn't treat racial minorities particularly well.

If they weren't particularly useful, why not just give them equal rights to whites anyway? It wouldn't hurt to get more people on your side. Are you sure the entire premise is ASB? Because I never thought an Axis Victory as ASB.

 

[General Ripper]

Probably can't be any worse than OTL. Especially bevbeca Ainu's are still here.

 

[Fred the Great]

If they weren't particularly useful, why not just give them equal rights to whites anyway? It wouldn't hurt to get more people on your side. Are you sure the entire premise is ASB? Because I never thought an Axis Victory as ASB.

That wasn't the Japanese way. And yes I'm certain the premise is ASB. Where do the Japanese find the men and the shipping to successfully invade Australia? Why would the US quit the war?

 

[Incanian]

still doesn't make it any better. They would do that to the indigenous in a heartbeat if not worse.

No no no I wasn't arguing it was good. Of course, they'd do it to a Native Australian, but the context would be different. The Japanese were fighting China for Years, but Australia is not as hard to bring down, then China.

It's getting late, so I'm probably gonna go to bed in a few minutes. Goodnight!

 

[Incanian]

That wasn't the Japanese way. And yes I'm certain the premise is ASB. Where do the Japanese find the men and the shipping to successfully invade Australia? Why would the US quit the war?

They believed that Asia shouldn't be ruled by whites, but by Asians (Japan), so if Japan rules Australia, why not just give them the same rights? Especially if some help during such an invasion of Australia.

I don't know. I'm sure there's hundreds of threads about Non-ASB Axis Victories, including Japan invading Australia.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Are you sure the entire premise is ASB?

Invading Australia, much less conquering it, and expecting to keep it all in a peace conference is ASB.

Because I never thought an Axis Victory as ASB.

There's two Axis victories: Germany and Japan.

German total victory is reasonably plausible. All Hitler has to do is knock out the USSR, which can be done in Moscow 1941 with a bit more good luck on the Germans' part. Scare Stalin enough or someone assassinates him, Russia's dead (falls into chaos), Hitler gets everything up to the Volga and in a year or two he has the industry to match the British Empire. Not declaring war on the USA will help.

Japanese victory, as I said in Post #4, was supposed to mean "we beat them up hard enough, they'll give us the status quo ante bellum and some oil without an embargo, and then we kick China's head in again". This is extremely unlikely, but just maybe can be achieved if Japan wins decisively at Coral Sea and alt-Midway. But there's no way that anyone in America would ever give Japan a better deal than that, and if they don't give the Japanese peace in mid-42, Japan is utterly screwed. The USA built more carriers in 1944 alone than Japan had over the course of the entire war. They could keep fighting the Japanese forever if they had to (but you know, nukes if things take too long). Saying that Japan can have Australia, which is a sizeable regional power, is certainly ASB.

- BNC

 

[BigSteve]

Considering the Japanese used Papua New Guineans as live bayonet practice, I can't see them spending the time to industrialise, train and arm the Aboriginals. Especially as they were lesser in number, more spread out and in less strategically important areas than the New Guineans were.

 

[Spens1]

No no no I wasn't arguing it was good. Of course, they'd do it to a Native Australian, but the context would be different. The Japanese were fighting China for Years, but Australia is not as hard to bring down, then China.

It's getting late, so I'm probably gonna go to bed in a few minutes. Goodnight!

it would be very hard still to take us down because you would have to travel thousands of kilometers in hot, inhospitable climates to get through to major population centre's.

If we beat them on neutral territory (New Gineau), they have no hope going through the desert at all. We wouldn't have to defeat them, the climate i think would.

and after that you will have a bunch of angry aussies who are probably armed to the teeth anyway if they somehow did pull it off.

 

[Fred the Great]

They believed that Asia shouldn't be ruled by whites, but by Asians (Japan), so if Japan rules Australia, why not just give them the same rights? Especially if some help during such an invasion of Australia.

The first part is wartime Japanese propaganda. They weren't interested in "freeing" Asian races, just getting what they wanted. I'd suggest more research as to how the Japanese treated people in occupied countries during WW2. As for the second part, we've already told you Aboriginal Australians would have been most unlikely to help the Japanese, but on top of this, tell us how they would have helped? Aboriginal Australians were disadvantaged - few would have owned firearms, comparative literacy rates were very low - what would they have done for the Japanese? At most, I'd say slave labour - pretty much what Japan used many ethnic groups in occupied Asian countries for.

I don't know. I'm sure there's hundreds of threads about Non-ASB Axis Victories, including Japan invading Australia.

There is not a single thread I've ever seen about an Axis victory that includes Japan successfully invading Australia that I have seen that would not be ASB. And my knowledge is sufficient to label the prospect as such. The Japanese themselves considered what they would need to invade Australia and dismissed it as being beyond them given their other commitments.

 

[Jellico]

Considering the Japanese used Papua New Guineans as live bayonet practice, I can't see them spending the time to industrialise, train and arm the Aboriginals. Especially as they were lesser in number, more spread out and in less strategically important areas than the New Guineans were.

Have a look at the treatment of (for want of a better word) tribal people in Japanese media well into the 80s and beyond. Think stuff like Warner Bros Censored 11.

This is why I asked about treatment in the Pacific Islands. Were the people involved, well treated, mistreated, or simply ignored as not worth the effort? I could easily see Australian Aboriginals treated in a similar manner. As noted above. Not enough of them in useful places for labor. Not educated enough for anything more.

 

[Baconheimer]

In my opinion, the Aboriginals will have very little change in their lives. Maybe treated slightly better, but considering how bad it was even slightly better doesn't mean good.

I don't understand how the Japanese would hold Australia. Conquering it is near-impossible, but holding it sounds even harder. I can't imagine 8 million white Australians will just how down to Japanese rule. I'd expect a long, hard guerilla conflict to expel the Japanese that simply would make the occupation force question why they were holding such a relatively useless territory at such high cost.

As for the Japanese using the aboriginals as a collaborator class, I simply don't think they were well enough educated or numerous to be an effective controlling force.

 

[Incanian]

In my opinion, the Aboriginals will have very little change in their lives. Maybe treated slightly better, but considering how bad it was even slightly better doesn't mean good.

I don't understand how the Japanese would hold Australia. Conquering it is near-impossible, but holding it sounds even harder. I can't imagine 8 million white Australians will just how down to Japanese rule. I'd expect a long, hard guerilla conflict to expel the Japanese that simply would make the occupation force question why they were holding such a relatively useless territory at such high cost.

As for the Japanese using the aboriginals as a collaborator class, I simply don't think they were well enough educated or numerous to be an effective controlling force.

Well, the majority of Australians lived in the big cities, and while yes, year-long Guerilla warfare would happen, with the influx of Asian immigrants to Australia, soon the Australian population would be bred out with Asians. Soon Guerilla fighters will be going further, and further inland away from Japanese authority.