Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
The Australian Constitution including the crucial Sections 57 and 64 were drawn up by Australians in Australia. If Australia had been an Republic with a President with the powers of the Governor-General the whole chain of events could have occurred in exactly the same way. No part of this saga can be blamed on London accept in the vaguest "they took the decision to create a colony on the continent and then signed off on an Australian authored Constitution which didn't clarify what was to happen if the government of the day couldn't pass supply".
They did, but if you check your links you'll see that the Sydney company was founded first but had endless delays, went bust and the line didn't open (under government ownership) until after services had started in SA and Victoria.
The NSW decision to use broad gauge was made in 1852 (before the Melbourne and Hobson's Bay company was founded) and reversed in 1853, by which time the Melbourne company was already laying track.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The latest post shows just how far the events of this time line have diverged from those of ours. Australia just like Britain the remainder of the Dominions and the British Empire, is in a much better position, than it was IOTL. It’s forces haven’t suffered the trials that they did in North Africa, or the defeat they endured in Malaysia. Without the success that the Japanese enjoyed IOTL, especially in the DEI’s, there isn’t the feeling of betrayal and abandonment by the British, that was so prevalent IOTL. Instead the success that their forces have enjoyed to date, in both North Africa and Malaysia, has embedded a confidence in their ability, that was at this time absent IOTL. As has already been pointed out, equipment that would have been sent to North Africa or Burma/India, is available to be sent to Australia. However it should be remembered that of the two principal “ White “ dominions, it was the weaker. It’s population was three fifths that of Canada, and far more dispersed across the nation, with poor land links between its centres of population. Unlike Canada where the majority of the population lived within 300 miles of the border to its major neighbour to the south, and was able to draw upon its extensive industrial strength. Australia was a very long way away from anywhere, its closest industrial neighbour was even weaker than it was, New Zealand, and both Britain and the United States were a long way away. Were as a Canadian company could order and have delivered along a secure land route if available, machinery for its factory equipment to be delivered in a matter of weeks. An Australian company ether had to find a domestic supplier if available, or place an order with a British or American supplier, then wait months for delivery, in the hope that its order doesn’t get sunk in transit.
Australia is trying to stand up an armoured division, and is looking to provide as much as it can of the equipment needed. However this requires them to decide where this division is going to be deployed to, as the requirements of a division for use in Europe are very different to those of a division for use in the Far East. After all what point is there in sending an armoured division to Papua New Guinea, it might be possible to use it on a few beaches, but nowhere else. In the same way, anything larger than an armoured brigade is essentially worthless in Malaya. And the sort of armoured unit you need in Italy or Greece, is very different to that you require in France. In much the same way, the best armoured division for deployment in Australia, would be based around AEC heavy armoured cars, and Daimler armoured cars, with some sort of wheeled armoured infantry carrier. There would be very little use for tracked vehicles, other than a possible half track such as the American M3. When we think of an armoured devision, we think of the classic German, Soviet, British or American armoured division deployed in Western, and Eastern Europe, but such divisions have very little use outside of these areas. And while the Jumbuck with the 25 pounder, is ideal in the infantry support role, and more than ideal for use in the Far East. Given the way tank development is going in Europe, outside of the mountains of Italy and Greece, this tank will soon be unfit for service. It will all depend on where the Australians decide they want their armoured division to serve. If like in WWI the ambition is for their to be an Australian corps serving alongside the British and Canadians, in France, then the Jumbucks will be retained for use by British, Indian and Allied forces in the Mediterranean theatre, with the Australians swapping them for the new British Panther equivalent. While the British will be more than happy to use them in the Far East, as the Jumbuck is without doubt superior to anything that the Japanese can deploy.
It should be noted that the divergence from OTL, is now so great that problems that didn’t occur IOTL, are going to appear ITTL. Starting with the relationship between the British and the Americans, as Britain is in a far better position militarily, politically, financially, economically and resource provision. Britain armoured vehicles are generally superior to anything that the Americans have in their arsenal, and at present the British forces have shown themselves to be as capable if not more capable than their opponents. While there is no doubt that the Americans become the superior partner in the Anglo American alliance, their economic and military strength will exceed that of the British eventually. The dominance that they enjoyed by the beginning of 1943, will be delayed until 1944, and it will be to an extent subdued. Australia will be less dependent on America, and retain a strong relationship with the motherland for the next few years. And with a stronger Dutch presence in the region, and the French not being so weak, American penetration of the region will be lessened. There is a good chance that the violent independence movements seen, will be very much muted, and the colonial regimes remain in place for longer. Nor given the stronger industrial base that has developed in Australia as a result of successfully producing more of the armaments it requires, is Australia going to be as amenable to imports of mechanical products post war, from ether Britain or America. A movement that had started in the inter war era, for Australia to produce more of what it consumed. Is only going to be strengthened by the events ITTL, and there is going to be a major push towards industrialisation post war.
RR.
Australia is trying to stand up an armoured division, and is looking to provide as much as it can of the equipment needed. However this requires them to decide where this division is going to be deployed to, as the requirements of a division for use in Europe are very different to those of a division for use in the Far East. After all what point is there in sending an armoured division to Papua New Guinea, it might be possible to use it on a few beaches, but nowhere else. In the same way, anything larger than an armoured brigade is essentially worthless in Malaya. And the sort of armoured unit you need in Italy or Greece, is very different to that you require in France. In much the same way, the best armoured division for deployment in Australia, would be based around AEC heavy armoured cars, and Daimler armoured cars, with some sort of wheeled armoured infantry carrier. There would be very little use for tracked vehicles, other than a possible half track such as the American M3. When we think of an armoured devision, we think of the classic German, Soviet, British or American armoured division deployed in Western, and Eastern Europe, but such divisions have very little use outside of these areas. And while the Jumbuck with the 25 pounder, is ideal in the infantry support role, and more than ideal for use in the Far East. Given the way tank development is going in Europe, outside of the mountains of Italy and Greece, this tank will soon be unfit for service. It will all depend on where the Australians decide they want their armoured division to serve. If like in WWI the ambition is for their to be an Australian corps serving alongside the British and Canadians, in France, then the Jumbucks will be retained for use by British, Indian and Allied forces in the Mediterranean theatre, with the Australians swapping them for the new British Panther equivalent. While the British will be more than happy to use them in the Far East, as the Jumbuck is without doubt superior to anything that the Japanese can deploy.
It should be noted that the divergence from OTL, is now so great that problems that didn’t occur IOTL, are going to appear ITTL. Starting with the relationship between the British and the Americans, as Britain is in a far better position militarily, politically, financially, economically and resource provision. Britain armoured vehicles are generally superior to anything that the Americans have in their arsenal, and at present the British forces have shown themselves to be as capable if not more capable than their opponents. While there is no doubt that the Americans become the superior partner in the Anglo American alliance, their economic and military strength will exceed that of the British eventually. The dominance that they enjoyed by the beginning of 1943, will be delayed until 1944, and it will be to an extent subdued. Australia will be less dependent on America, and retain a strong relationship with the motherland for the next few years. And with a stronger Dutch presence in the region, and the French not being so weak, American penetration of the region will be lessened. There is a good chance that the violent independence movements seen, will be very much muted, and the colonial regimes remain in place for longer. Nor given the stronger industrial base that has developed in Australia as a result of successfully producing more of the armaments it requires, is Australia going to be as amenable to imports of mechanical products post war, from ether Britain or America. A movement that had started in the inter war era, for Australia to produce more of what it consumed. Is only going to be strengthened by the events ITTL, and there is going to be a major push towards industrialisation post war.
RR.
Does anyone know if the UK had an internal tariff system in place between GB and the colonies or dominions during the war? Just throwing it out there for discussion but a massive UK free trade zone would likely mitigate colonial demands for full independence as staying within the free trade zone would yield much greater economic benefit....and in that context would mitigate the USA's ascension to being the sole global super power. My understanding is that in the USA have an interstate trade act where no tariffs may be imposed on Interstate trade. If the UK would apply that same type of legislation except between dominions.and colonies, that would make for a truly massive tariff free trading block.
IIRC the USA insisted that the Imperial Preference tariffs were abolished as a condition for Lend-Lease. A “knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”
Well the USA isn't exactly looking quite so sh*t-hot ATM, so even with no tariffs, it probably won't be plain sailing getting into those markets. In addition, we might avoid such incidences as the Battle of Brisbane (Australia) and the Battle of Manners Street (New Zealand), due to far fewer, if any Americans being stationed there.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Up until it was abandoned as a result of American insistence on the introduction of Lend Lease, the majority of trade between the nations of the British Empire and its Dominions, plus a select few other nations, was covered by Imperial Preference. There is no question that this was a major war aim of FDR, and the majority of American industry. In addition another requirement was that Britain stopped exporting industrial goods that were also produced in America, and concentrated on manufacturing war goods for the allied cause. The majority of field uniforms worn by American soldiers in Europe, were manufactured in British clothing factories, from cloth woven in British mills. This factor is why Britain had a greater percentage of its industries devoted to war production than America.
I can't see FDR getting his way now even with Churchill wanting to sell the family silverware
You will have have to ask allan but I think it's already happened.
Whitlam oughtn’t be placed at the door of London. As with Lang a self important buffoon playing beyond the limits of acceptable ruling class politics encountered the international banking systems limits on conduct. The thing to remember regarding either “limited judicious judgements on the private networks of confidence” or “conspiracy theory” is Lang London, Whitlam Washington. The particular mechanism with Lang I’ve seen presented as part of a PhD thesis at USYD. Whitlam in an under received paper. Both instances were earnest and not overstating the causative. The cause was limits on parliamentary Labor placed by banks. The claimed mechanism was the old boys / drinking network.
What’s interesting for this timeline? Ming wont lose confidence. So there’ll be a delay on Labor to power and such a labor will be restricted more closely to UK banks overseas investments as a deferral / transfer payment of US capital. For example BHP Newcastle was US capital. Ford and Holden in Melbourne: US capital.
What’s interesting for this timeline? Ming wont lose confidence. So there’ll be a delay on Labor to power and such a labor will be restricted more closely to UK banks overseas investments as a deferral / transfer payment of US capital. For example BHP Newcastle was US capital. Ford and Holden in Melbourne: US capital.
Kerr should have explored the possibility of ordering a partial Senate election, which is also within his powers but decided to dismiss Whitlam, despite Whitlam winning an election a few months earlier. Kerr was a partisan person and it showed in what he did to Whitlam. However this is outside the scope of this thread, so lets leave it. Kerr was as Whitlam suggested, a "cur".
Oh dear, it's look like another mess had been started, and considering how far is this from POD, this kerfuffle of Whitlam and Kerr would probably not even happened,
As for the latter part, I have no idea what does that meant...
What is this referring to BTW? Ming still lose resigns ITTL (although it is less likely for this scenario to happen, perhaps his insistence and failure to create a national goverment still force him to resign and Arthur Fadden still alienates Coles and thus a Curtin goverment being formed)
As for the latter part, I have no idea what does that meant...
Last edited:
Bum—hadn't remembered it had been covered here already. Curtin will face a stronger Imperial motivation and a weaker National motivation due to the lack of the shocking crisis. Army Education might be quietly purged if the labour left isn't as essential in a crisis to help protect Australian Capital from Japanese Capital. Lots of flow ons from a softer war from Australia. Labor is unlikely to go the Doctors and Banks, for example, post-war. Correspondingly the Coal Miners won't have the balls. Curtin can be called many things, but neither he nor Chifley had the hubris of Lang or Whitlam.
>The later part.
You can't just sell Fords in Australia, that'd violate preference. But if you're allowed to set up Ford Australia which kitbuilds Fords supplied from the US you can circumvent preference. Australia had previously done this under Labor in NSW with heavy steels (and would OTL shortly do so again).
The UK wants to lock the Australian economy into a semi-peripheral resource exporter. The US knows that Australian (for example) car capitalism would be uncompetitive, but that a great deal of market share can be captured by manufacturing locally.
Even with a stronger UK, there is so much excess money floating around the US that the UK is likely to trade "access to be able to manufacture US designs from US parts in Australia" for benefits in the UK:US relationship. Its a more esoteric kind of market openness than just throwing open the market to straight US imports.
yours,
Sam R.
The UAP's disentegraton had nothing to do with how badly the war was going. It's cause was domestic - it was provoked by Menzies' absence in the UK.
United Australia Party - Wikipedia
Until the 1943-08-21 federal election Curtin will be reliant on conservative country independents. Their level of fear will immediately dictate the limits of policy. After the 1943 election Curtin will be responsible to the UK and US banks. In general Curtin's policy terrain will be more limited and more cautious due to the lack of failure in the UK economic system, and the lack of the US as an immediate available replacement. Note I'm talking about increased limits, not the "gesture" of war time community labourism, or the community of free democratic nations, or the need to get the bloody left and commos under control in the unions. But there's less space for the commos and labour lefts in the unions if the UK is succeeding and "Empire" seems to be congruent with "Nation" and "Labourism:" people won't want to replace a system which is working far more in their perceived interests. So smaller factory welfare initiatives outside of safety and disease. Less US direct foreign investment. More UK purchases. No grandiose panic about the Brisbane line.
The UAP had some severe fundamental problems as a party. Menzies founded the Liberal party using a lot of organisational techniques borrowed from the Labor Movement in what perhaps was Menzies' finest moment (other than his opening of Universities to merit bonded appointments, Ming made Unis free for many boomers long before Labor did). Menzies actually learnt from his mistakes in the configuration of the UAP. Also considerably helped by the labour movement's picking half a fight with coal miners, doctors and banks. Labor is unlikely to suffer from hubris when the entire labour movement (including the commos) has a smaller horizon due to UK success.
yours,
Sam R.
The UAP had some severe fundamental problems as a party. Menzies founded the Liberal party using a lot of organisational techniques borrowed from the Labor Movement in what perhaps was Menzies' finest moment (other than his opening of Universities to merit bonded appointments, Ming made Unis free for many boomers long before Labor did). Menzies actually learnt from his mistakes in the configuration of the UAP. Also considerably helped by the labour movement's picking half a fight with coal miners, doctors and banks. Labor is unlikely to suffer from hubris when the entire labour movement (including the commos) has a smaller horizon due to UK success.
yours,
Sam R.