Make Darwin an Australian 'Singapore'

This is not about WW2 or the military or battles.

So basically, with a point of departure after 1929, is it possible for Darwin to become a major population (population of 1.5 million+), commercial and economic hub by today, in a similar style to Singapore?

Could a rail line (as proposed by MacArthur using American money, resources and manpower) built during the war from Mt Isa or Cloncurry help develop it, followed by a slightly different Clapp scheme in the late 1940s, might strengthen the inland connection, opening up the interior further and making Darwin less isolated?

The main issue would be that Darwin would need new port facilities at some point in the 1930s or 1940s at least to get this done as a sort of initial stimulus, as although its a great harbour, the pier and other facilities was shit.

Would there be a large immigrant population in the post war years or mostly intra-state migration? What could the city look like today with a much larger population? What would the political landscape look like in Australia?

Thoughts?
 
This is not about WW2 or the military or battles.

So basically, with a point of departure after 1929, is it possible for Darwin to become a major population (population of 1.5 million+), commercial and economic hub by today, in a similar style to Singapore?

Could a rail line (as proposed by MacArthur using American money, resources and manpower) built during the war from Mt Isa or Cloncurry help develop it, followed by a slightly different Clapp scheme in the late 1940s, might strengthen the inland connection, opening up the interior further and making Darwin less isolated?

The main issue would be that Darwin would need new port facilities at some point in the 1930s or 1940s at least to get this done as a sort of initial stimulus, as although its a great harbour, the pier and other facilities was shit.

Would there be a large immigrant population in the post war years or mostly intra-state migration? What could the city look like today with a much larger population? What would the political landscape look like in Australia?

Thoughts?

The Northern Territory is exempt from the 'White Australian Policy'. Thousands of Chinese and Indians settle around Darwin from the early twentieth century.
 
The problem is that Singapore is fantastically placed at the tip of the Malay peninsular and controlling the Singapore Strait, Darwin is just the best placed port in Northern Australia. That means it's never going to get the same degree of "passing trade" enabling it become an entrepot and it's unlikely to ever have such strategic importance meaning the massive military presence Singapore had in OTL (3rd largest naval base on the planet after Pearl and Portsmouth in the 30's.).

Also unlike the other Australian coastal cities it's never going to match them as an export gateway. The soil in the NT is just to poor and climate too hostile to ever match the cities to the south.

That said it's incredibly easy to substantially increase it's size from it's OTL status as a large village. Starting with a rail link to Adelaide and if possible Mt Isa and then Brisbane as well. Even just have it established a bit earlier and get a few convicts.
 

sharlin

Banned
I belive that Jellico wanted a major base to be built up either at Sidney or Darwin post WW1 for a planned Australian fleet, but this was scuppered by the Washington naval treaty. If it was built up militarily it could become an important commercial/civilian hub too.
 
Don't think so. There's no reason to sail by Darwin unless you're going to Darwin: it's simply too far off beaten maritime trade paths. The comparison with Singapore and the Strait of Mallaca just isn't there at all.
 
With good rail links to the rest of the country early enough I could see it booming as our gateway to Asia.
 

Cook

Banned
Could a rail line (as proposed by MacArthur using American money, resources and manpower) built during the war from Mt Isa or Cloncurry help develop it, followed by a slightly different Clapp scheme in the late 1940s, might strengthen the inland connection, opening up the interior further and making Darwin less isolated? The main issue would be that Darwin would need new port facilities at some point in the 1930s or 1940s at least to get this done as a sort of initial stimulus, as although its a great harbour, the pier and other facilities was shit
Rail transportation is not as efficient as sea transportation. To be cost effective rail needs the ratio of rolling stock to tack as high as possible and the track length as short as possible. Which means that the rail line should go to the absolutely closest potential port, not snake all the way across the country, from there it can be transported to Darwin and then transferred to other shipping for other destinations. The current rail link to South Australia is not profitable, an earlier one would have been even less so.

You are correct, the greatest hindrance to the growth of Darwin was its’ infamous dog-leg pier. The greatest service the Japanese ever did Darwin was bombing that pier out of existance. Whoever designed it should have been shot. A straight pier, with docking on both sides, crane facilities and a rail line right to the end were basics long before Darwin was built so why it wasn’t done is a mystery.

An earlier recognition of the mineral resources of the north probably is all the stimulous you’d require. Darwin would become the logistics hub of the region and accelerate the earlier growth. Particularly is the Kimberly’s diamonds and gold were discovered early in the century.
The Northern Territory is exempt from the 'White Australian Policy'. Thousands of Chinese and Indians settle around Darwin from the early twentieth century.
The Northern Territory and northern Western Australia were always exempt from the W.A.P; the tropics being considered a climate not conducive to the white man.
 
The Northern Territory and northern Western Australia were always exempt from the W.A.P; the tropics being considered a climate not conducive to the white man.

Ironically, that's not racism. It is a fact of medical science today that those from tropical climates at least have a greater natural protection against malaria than Caucasians. While sickle cell anemia, frex, is a very deadly disease, those who have only sickle cell trait have been found to have, if not immunity, at least a strong natural resistance to the disease.
 
Ironically, that's not racism. It is a fact of medical science today that those from tropical climates at least have a greater natural protection against malaria than Caucasians. While sickle cell anemia, frex, is a very deadly disease, those who have only sickle cell trait have been found to have, if not immunity, at least a strong natural resistance to the disease.

Australia has malaria?
 
How about Broome? I've heard it had the makings of a bit of a multi-cultural metropolis (well, town) in the 19th century.
 
Could Darwin act as a sort of Australian Scapa Flow, (ie not on the main shipping routes, but a good marshalling yard for ships, with the Van Diemen Gulf right next door)?
 

Flubber

Banned
I belive that Jellico wanted a major base to be built up either at Sidney or Darwin post WW1 for a planned Australian fleet, but this was scuppered by the Washington naval treaty. If it was built up militarily it could become an important commercial/civilian hub too.


Jellicoe recommended that Singapore host any proposed RN fleet base after his 1919 tour. With WW1 removing Germany and Russia from the picture, he and others had already identified Japan as the major threat to the UK's position in the Far East.

The Admiralty soft pedaled Jellicoe's report for a few years as a way to assuage Australian public opinion and that's where the myth about Jellicoe supposedly recommending Sydney or Darwin dates from. However, during an imperial defense conference in 1921 and after some Admiralty foot dragging, Jellicoe's Singapore plan was quickly adopted. Rose covers all of this in Power at Sea: The Breaking Storm, 1919-1945.

Singapore was the best choice for all the strategic reasons already stated in this thread, while the only advantage an Australian port provides is a somewhat shorter steaming distance to Japan's post-WW1 mandates.
 
Singapore is right from a Bitish (RN) perspective, but from an Australian point of view - while Brisbane may well be their main port, wouldn't better (than OTL) facilities at Darwin give them better communications with NEI and Singapore!?
 
The British view was the Australian view until the late 50s early 60s, at which point the Australian view changed to be the American view.
 
Top